JUDGMENT 1. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on behalf of the appellant-non-claimSant No.1 (RSRTC) against the judgment and award dated 17.12.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratapgarh in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 238/2017 (95/15) titled as "Nanuram & Anr. Vs. Mohanlal & Anr." whereby, the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed on behalf of the claimants and awarded a sum of Rs.7,86,000/- towards compensation on account of accidental death of their son (Bheema). 2. Briefly put the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that on the fateful day of 17.11.2014 at around 08:40 in the morning, Bheema along with companion Kailash were going to drink tea at Basaad Bus Stand on motorcycle then, at the Basaad Bus Stand, a Rajasthan Roadways Bus bearing registration number R.J.12 PA 0543 came from Mandsaur side, which was driven rashly and negligently by its driver, hit the motorcycle and as a result of this hitting, Bhemma and his companion fell down; both sustained injuries; due to grievous injuries sustained by Bheema, he was taken to the District hospital, Pratapgarh from the site, where he was died during treatment; after the accident, FIR No. 524/2014 was chalked out and after investigation, Police has proceeded to file charge-sheet before the concerned Court against the non-applicant No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code; that the said accident was occurred due to negligence of the non-applicant No.1 as a result of which, Bheema was died and for his sudden death, the claimants have facing pain and sufferings and they have been deprived from love and affection of their deceased son. Therefore, as mentioned in the claim petition, they may be allowed compensation from the respondents. 3. Therefore, as mentioned in the claim petition, they may be allowed compensation from the respondents. 3. In their reply, it was stated on behalf of the respondents that averments as made in the claim petition are denied for want of information; that a false and fabricated case has been prepared with the help of police officials only to get the compensation; that there is no role of the non-applicant No.1 in the accident; in the special submissions, it was stated by the respondents that on the basis of false, incomplete averments and suspicious and non-readable documents, the claimants have presented the claim petition; that on the date and place, no accident was occurred with vehicle Bus No. RJ. 12 PA 0543; that no role has been played by the non-applicant No.1 in the accident; that on the contrary, deceased Bheema himself was responsible for the accident; that the alleged place of accident is turn and onwards, it is a public place and highway and there is movement of many vehicles; that it was also alleged that the deceased Bheema would have come on motorcycle in the middle of the road, he himself and by avoiding other vehicles, without wearing any helmet by violating the rules of traffic, while talking on mobile, in a state of drunkard by consuming liquor, going on the road and by losing his balance in hasten, he would have fell down on any hard place, resulted in injuries and would have died, therefore, he is responsible; Bheema was not having an effective and valid license to drive the motorcycle; that the owner of the motorcycle and the insurance company have not been made parties; that only with an intention to get compensation, Kailash was alleged to drive the motorcycle while deceased Bheema was alleged to be a companion; and in fact, Kailash was not present on the spot; that by manipulating, the case was present, therefore, claimants' claim is liable to be dismissed. It was prayed that the claim petition may be rejected. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and after the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal has framed as many as five issues which read as under:- 5. On behalf of the claimants, AW-1 Nanuram, AW-2 Kailash and AW-3 Rajendra have been produced in evidence and documents 1 to 17 have been exhibited. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and after the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal has framed as many as five issues which read as under:- 5. On behalf of the claimants, AW-1 Nanuram, AW-2 Kailash and AW-3 Rajendra have been produced in evidence and documents 1 to 17 have been exhibited. On behalf of the non-applicants, NAW-1 Mohanlal, non-applicant No.1 has been examined. 6. The Tribunal has heard the final arguments and perused the file. While reiterating the whole incident, learned counsel for the claimants prayed for allowing compensation on account of accidental death of Bheema in favour of the claimants and on the other hand, while narrating the contents of the reply, learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the claim application. 7. The learned Tribunal has proceeded to decide issues No.1 and 3 together by observing that both these issues are interconnected and, therefore, they are required to be decided together. In these issues, learned Tribunal has found that Bheema was died due to the said accident and at the same time, non-applicant No.1 Mohanlal was found to be responsible for the said accident. In this manner, issue No.1 was decided in favour of the claimants and against the non-applicants. Issue No. 3 regarding negligence of the deceased himself for the said accident was decided against the non-applicants and in favour of the claimants, as the non-applicant No.1 has not been able to prove this issue. Issue No. 2 regarding driving of the bus by the non-applicant No.1 for the benefit of non-applicant No.2, while working under his control, was found to be proved and the same was decided in favour of the applicants and against the non-applicants. Issue No. 4 regarding liability to pay the compensation was decided in favour of the claimants by observing that as the issues No. 1 and3 have already been decided in favour of the claimants, therefore, the claimants are entitled to get the compensation from the non-applicants severally and jointly. The Tribunal has further proceeded to determine the age of the deceased, number of dependents, income of the deceased, loss of income, and after a long discussion, while referring to the pronouncements delivered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in various cases, made the final award of compensation in the sum of Rs.7,86,000/- in favour of the claimants. 8. The Tribunal has further proceeded to determine the age of the deceased, number of dependents, income of the deceased, loss of income, and after a long discussion, while referring to the pronouncements delivered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in various cases, made the final award of compensation in the sum of Rs.7,86,000/- in favour of the claimants. 8. For ready reference, the entire award made by the Tribunal is reproduced here as under:- 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. Learned counsel Mr. Purohit appearing on behalf of the appellants - (RSRTC) stated that respondent No.3 Mohanlal, driver of the bus was not responsible for the accident; and in fact, the deceased Bheema himself was in a drunken state and while talking on mobile, driving the motorcycle at the centre point of the road and accident took place for the fault of the deceased himself. It is also submitted that the so called witness - Kailash was not present on the spot. Lastly, he prayed that impugned award and judgment passed by learned Tribunal is not sustainable in law; and the income of the deceased Bheema was also not proved, therefore, the award ought to have been passed by considering minimum wages prescribed for unskilled labour, therefore, the judgment and award dated 17.12.2019 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Pratapgarh, Rajasthan in M.A.C. Case No.238/17 (95/15) titled as "Nanuram & Anr. Vs. Mohanlal & Anr." may kindly be quashed and set aside. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-claimants stated that, in reply to the notice given under Section 133 of Motor Vehicle Act Ex.10, it is admitted by the appellant-non-claimant (RSRTC) that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle, i.e., Bus No. RJ 12 PA 0543 was driven by respondent No.3, Mohanlal and his statement was recorded as NAW-1; he himself admitted this fact that charge-sheet was filed against him by the police after investigation for the offences of rash and negligent driving; although he stated that the F.I.R. was lodged wrongly against him. He further stated that there is catena of judgment in which, it was held that for the determination of negligence of vehicle, if memos. prepared by the Police during investigation are supported by oral evidence then, the same could be considered as a ground for the determination of negligence/responsibility. He further stated that there is catena of judgment in which, it was held that for the determination of negligence of vehicle, if memos. prepared by the Police during investigation are supported by oral evidence then, the same could be considered as a ground for the determination of negligence/responsibility. In the present case,AW-2 Kailash was present along with the deceased Bheema and being an eye witness, he had categorically stated that the motorcycle was driven by the deceased Bheema; on the place of the accident, a roadways bus, which was driven rashly and negligently by its driver, hit the motorcycle and as a result of that hitting Kailash himself and Bheema fall down and both sustained injuries and due to grievous injuries, Bheema was taken to the District Hospital, Pratapgarh and during treatment, he had died. He further stated that the deceased Bheema was 18 years in age at the time of the accident which is proved by the oral evidence and postmortem report. 12. So far as income of the deceased Bheema is concerned, the same has been proved by the AW-3 Rajendra Anjana, who had categorically stated that Nanuram and his son Bheema (deceased) worked for him in his field and Rs.5,000/- per month were paid by him to the deceased Bheema, this evidence remains uncontroverted, therefore, in the humble opinion of this Court, the income of the deceased has rightly been assessed by the learned Tribunal in this regard. He further stated that deduction of 1/2 was made wrongly in the present case because both the claimants, i.e., mother and father of the deceased were dependent on the deceased, therefore, deduction of 1/3 is applicable in the present case. 13. Having regard to totality of facts and circumstances of this case and arguments of both the sides, in my opinion, so far as, the issue No.1 is concerned, it was stated by AW-2, Kailash (eye witness) that the roadways bus was driven rashly and negligently by its driver and bus hits the motorcycle of the deceased Bheema and as a result, Bheema and Kailash fell down and injuries were sustained to both of them; since the injuries of Bheema were grievous in nature, therefore, he died during treatment. It is also an admitted position that the F.I.R. No.524/2014 was chalked out against Mohanlal, the driver of the Bus No. RJ 12 PA 0543. It is also an admitted position that the F.I.R. No.524/2014 was chalked out against Mohanlal, the driver of the Bus No. RJ 12 PA 0543. As per evidence available on record, it is also proved that after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against Mohanlal and this fact was also admitted by Mohanlal during his statement recorded as NAW-1. It is also relevant that no independent evidence of rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle driven by Bheema was proved by the Insurance Company or Mohanlal. Although, it is not proved that at the time of accident, Bheema was in a drunken position; apart from that, on this basis, he cannot be held liable for contributory negligence towards the accident in light of judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in a batch of appeals, led by Civil Appeal No. 4945-46/2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 20557-58/2007 titled as Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. Vs. Kanjujamma Mohan & Ors. (vide Head Note D, para 20.6), decided on 02.07.2013, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 166 . 14. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, issue Nos.1 and 2 have rightly been decided by learned Tribunal against the respondents (RSRTC) and in favour of the claimants. 15. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, although, it has been argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-claimants that deduction of 1/2 has wrongly been made by the learned Tribunal but upon perusal of the record of the case, it is an admitted position that at the time of accident, the deceased Bheema was a bachelor & 18 years in age, whereas the claimants, i.e., the father and mother of the deceased were 50 and 45 years old respectively. Therefore, it cannot be held that claimants were dependent on the deceased. It is also pertinent to mention here that no cross-appeal and cross-objection were filed by the claimants in this regard and the age and income of the deceased Bheema were also proved by the claimants on the basis of statement of AW-1 Nanuram and AW-3 Rajendra Anjana. The future prospects was also considered and claim was passed by the Tribunal concerned, as per the guidelines issued by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (SLP No. 25590/2014, decided on 31.10.2017) and Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. The future prospects was also considered and claim was passed by the Tribunal concerned, as per the guidelines issued by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (SLP No. 25590/2014, decided on 31.10.2017) and Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.3483/2008, decided on 15.04.2009). 16. In view of the foregoing observations, no ground for interference is made out in the present appeal, therefore, the appeal is dismissed and judgment and award passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratapgarh in Motor Accident Claims Case No.238/17 (95/15) titled as "Nanuram & Anr. Vs. Mohanlal & Ors." is affirmed with no order as to costs.