JUDGMENT Vipin Chandra Dixit, J. Heard Sri. Archit Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Ankur Goyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimant-respondent nos. 1 to 3 and perused the record. No one is present on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5. 2. This first appeal from order has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgement and award dated 07.12.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.-15/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Agra in M.A.C.P. No. 921 of 2007(Sri. R.M.S. Jayas and others v. Sri. Yashpal Singh and others) by which compensation of Rs. 17,31,378.74/- paisa along with 07% interest has been awarded in favour of claimants-respondents on account of death of Abhishek Jayas aged about 23 years. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that it was a case of head on collision in between Honda Activa Scooter and Maruti Van and as such drivers of both the vehicles were equally negligent and responsible for the accident. The claims tribunal has erred in deciding issue no.1 holding rash and negligent driving of driver of Maruti Van and nothing has been deducted in terms of contributory negligence of the scooterist. It is further submitted that the claims tribunal has also erred in accepting monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 10,800/- per month, whereas the deceased was a student of B.Tech final year. Lastly it is submitted that the claimants had failed to prove the medical expenses occurred in medical treatment of the deceased and the claims tribunal has awarded a very excessive amount of Rs. 6,19,778.74/- paisa for medical expenses. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimants-respondents submits that the claims tribunal after considering the entire evidence and materials, which are available on record has recorded the finding while deciding issue no.1 that the driver of Maruti Van was rash and negligent and the finding recorded by the claims tribunal in respect of negligence of driver of Maruti Van is based on evidence and materials, which are available on record. It is further submitted that in any case the deceased was pillion rider on Honda Activa Scooter and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased and it was a case of composite negligence and it is open to the claimants to claim compensation either from one vehicle or from both the vehicles. It is further submitted that in any case the deceased was pillion rider on Honda Activa Scooter and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased and it was a case of composite negligence and it is open to the claimants to claim compensation either from one vehicle or from both the vehicles. He placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others, reported in 2015 (9) SCC 273 . It is further submitted that admittedly the deceased was student of B.Tech final year and his future was very bright and monthly income assessed by the claims tribunal cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. He has relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Meena Pawaia and others v. Ashraf Ali and others reported in (2022) 1 ALD(SC) 54 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has assessed income Rs. 10,000/- per month of the deceased who was student of civil engineering, third year. Lastly, it is submitted that the claimants had produced bill and vouchers of the different hospitals and medical expenses was fully proved by the claimants and there was no evidence in rebuttal by the Insurance Company. The claims tribunal has rightly allowed the medical expenses as claimed by the claimants. 5. Considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Admittedly, it was a case of head on collision in between Honda Activa Scooter and Maruti Van, which was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. The claims tribunal has recorded finding in respect of negligence of driver of Maruti Van after considering the evidence and materials, which are available on record. More so it was a case of composite negligence, the claimants can claim compensation either from one vehicle or from both the vehicles, in view of judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei (supra). So far as income of the deceased is concerned, deceased was student of B.Tech final year and his future was very bright and monthly income as Rs. 10,800/- accepted by the claims tribunal cannot be said to be excessive in any manner and it is supported with the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Meena Pawaia (supra). 10,800/- accepted by the claims tribunal cannot be said to be excessive in any manner and it is supported with the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Meena Pawaia (supra). The claims tribunal has also awarded medical expenses after considering the medical bills produced by the claimants. In absence of any evidence in rebuttal by the Insurance Company, the claims tribunal has rightly allowed the medical bills. 7. No ground for interference is made out. The appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 8. The appeal is dismissed, accordingly. 9. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.