JUDGMENT 1. Mr. Manish Pitaliya, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents-claimants. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard finally at this stage. 3. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance company against judgment and award dated 06.04.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Bhilwara in Motor Accident Claim Application Case No.247/2018(567/2017), whereby, the learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties decided the claim petition of the respondents-claimants and awarded a sum of Rs. 40,97,000/- in their favour on account of the death of Puneet Derashri in the accident which occurred on 14.06.2017. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record as well as material supplied by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company vehemently submitted that the Tribunal committed an error while deciding Issue No.2. Learned counsel submits that although the deceased (Puneet Derashri) was a practising advocate, however, no documentary evidence showing the income of the deceased as Rs. 20,000/- per month was placed on record. He further submits that monthly income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side and the Tribunal committed an error in awarding the compensation on higher side in the present case. 6. Learned counsel further submits that although the fact of accident is not disputed but due to sudden turn of the vehicle driven by the deceased, the accident occurred on the Highway. Learned counsel while making his submissions has referred to the site plan prepared by the Police during the course of the investigation and tried to show that although the car driven by the deceased was on the correct side of the road but the accident occurred because of the sudden turn by the vehicle of the deceased, therefore, the point of contributory negligence should have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while deciding the compensation. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants while rebutting the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the income of the deceased was rightly taken into consideration as Rs.20,000/-per month. The deceased was an active practising counsel in the District Court, Bhilwara. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants while rebutting the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the income of the deceased was rightly taken into consideration as Rs.20,000/-per month. The deceased was an active practising counsel in the District Court, Bhilwara. He further submits that the Vakalatnamas filed before the Courts along with the Lawyers diary maintained by the deceased were also placed on record and were exhibited before the Tribunal. He further submitted that receipts of the school fees of children as well as other documentary evidence showing the income of the deceased as Rs.20,000/- were placed on record before the Tribunal, therefore, no error was committed by the Tribunal while taking into consideration Rs.20,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. 8. It is also submitted that the vehicle was driven by the deceased on the correct side of the road and while turning on the Highway, he was vigilant but the offending Truck which was being driven rashly and negligently, caused the accident in the present case. He further submits that even as per the site plan prepared by the Police, it cannot be said that the car driven by the deceased was on the wrong side. He further submits that even the Insurance Company had not agitated before the Tribunal that the deceased was not driving the vehicle on the correct side. He submits that it was the entire fault of driver of the offending vehicle who caused the accident and, thus, the Tribunal rightly awarded the compensation to the claimants. 9. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar, have gone through the judgment and award dated 06.04.2021 as well as other relevant records of the case produced before this Court by both the learned counsel during the course of arguments. 10. The finding of the Tribunal on Issue No.2 with respect to the consideration of the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.20,000/- per month appears to be reasonable. Admittedly, the deceased was an active practising counsel in the District Court, Bhilwara which is apparent from the copies of the Vakalatnamas produced before the Tribunal as well as Lawyers diary maintained by him, which were exhibited before the Tribunal. The finding of the fact recorded by the Tribunal, in these circumstances, cannot be faulted with. Admittedly, the deceased was an active practising counsel in the District Court, Bhilwara which is apparent from the copies of the Vakalatnamas produced before the Tribunal as well as Lawyers diary maintained by him, which were exhibited before the Tribunal. The finding of the fact recorded by the Tribunal, in these circumstances, cannot be faulted with. For brevity, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is as under : - 11. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side is not sustainable and the same is, therefore, rejected. 12. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the accident occurred because of the sudden turn taken by the deceased is also liable to be rejected on account of the fact that the site plan prepared by the Police during the course of investigation shows that the vehicle was turning from the road on its correct side and the offending vehicle being driven on the Highway, hit the car of the deceased, causing the accident. Even as per the site plan, it has not been shown that the deceased was driving the vehicle on the wrong side. Thus, the point of contributory negligence agitated by the learned counsel for the appellant is also not sustainable. More over, the point of contributory negligence was also not pressed into the service before the Tribunal. Thus, the finding recorded by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity. 13. In view of the discussions made above, the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 06.04.2021 does not call for any interference by this Court. The appeal is dismissed being bereft of merit. Stay petition also stands disposed of.