JUDGMENT : ARUN MONGA, J. 1. Instant appeals are directed against and are for setting aside the common judgment and award dated 09.10.2018 passed by the learned Family Judge, Banswara in M.A.C. Case Nos. 394/2017, 5/2018 and 4/2018 respectively, vide which compensation of Rs. 2,12,180/-, 143,172 and 1,46,720/-respectively has been awarded in favor of the respondents-claimants i.e. Dhirajmal, Rangji and Narulal. 2. The brief facts are that on 24.09.2007 at about 4.30 P.M. Dhirajmal, Rangji and Narulal were going on Motorcycle from Banswara deir. At that time a bus bearing registration No.RJ-03/P-1160 being driven rashly and negligently and coming from Ratlam to Banswara came and hit the motorcycle, as a result of which they all sustained various injuries. 2.1 A case vide FIR No.129/2007 was also registered at Police Station Ambapura, District Banswara and Challan was also filed. For the injuries sustained by the claimants, claim petitions were filed before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara. 2.2 In reply to the claim petitions filed by the appellants denied the averments made by the claimants. It was also stated that the claims deserve to be rejected on the ground of non-impleading necessary parties namely owner, driver and insurance company of the motorcycle. 2.3 On the basis of the pleadings of both parties, the following issues were framed: (i)Whether it is proved that on 24.09.2007 at about 4:30 p.m., near Village Napala Naka, Mauja Ratlam-Banswara Road, District Banswara, the driver of Roadways Bus No. RJ 03/P-1160, employed by appellant Nos.1 and 2, while driving the said vehicle rashly, negligently, and at high speed, hit a motorcycle, resulting in serious and minor injuries to Dhirajmal, Narulal, and Rangji? (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive the compensation amount mentioned in the claim petitions, or any other amount, from the non-applicants? If yes, then from whom and to what extent? (iii) Whether the non-applicants are not liable for compensation for the reasons stated in their written objections? (iv) Relief. 3. Based on the respective evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Tribunal decided issue No. 1 in favour of claimants, issue No. 2 partly in their favour and issue No. 3 against the respondent appellants. It awarded compensation to respondent Dhirajmal amounting Rs.2,12,180/-, respondent Narulal amounting Rs.1,46,720/- and respondent Rangji amounting Rs.1,43,172/-. 4. Dhirajmal, Narulal and Rangji injured claimants appeared as own witnesses. It awarded compensation to respondent Dhirajmal amounting Rs.2,12,180/-, respondent Narulal amounting Rs.1,46,720/- and respondent Rangji amounting Rs.1,43,172/-. 4. Dhirajmal, Narulal and Rangji injured claimants appeared as own witnesses. They consistently stated that the bus driven by Iqbal Khan rashly and negligently had come from the opposite side and struck into their motor cycle and that accident had resulted from the rash and negligent driving of Iqbal Khan. 5. NAW Iqbal Khan simply deposed that the accident was not caused by his rash and negligent driving. He admitted that in this connection a case had been registered against him at police station but he had not challenged it’s registration. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the learned Tribunal rightly discarded his self-serving statement and accepting the consistent testimony of the three injured persons held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by Iqbal Khan. Merely because the injured persons were triple riding the motor cycle does not mean that they were responsible for the accident. 6. The testimonies of the three injured persons also show that as a result of the accident they had suffered injuries. The documentary evidence produced by them also shows that the injuries suffered by them had caused permanent disability in the case of Dhirajmal aged 37 years 16%, Narulal aged 38 years 14% and Rangji aged 42 years 14%. After determining their income at a modest amount Rs. 3600/- per month and application of appropriate multiplier, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation in their favour as noted above. 7. The award has been challenged by the appellants saying that issues No. 1 and 2 have been wrongly decided by the learned Tribunal in favour of the claimants and that in fact accident had resulted from the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle on which the claimants were riding. In any case, the compensation awarded by the learned tribunal is excessive. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for appellants and perused the record, I am of the opinion that these appeal merit dismissal. 9. The finding of the learned Tribunal on issue No. 3 has not been challenged. 10. In any case, the compensation awarded by the learned tribunal is excessive. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for appellants and perused the record, I am of the opinion that these appeal merit dismissal. 9. The finding of the learned Tribunal on issue No. 3 has not been challenged. 10. The learned Tribunal relieved upon the testimonies of the three injured persons showing that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus by Iqbal Khan and as a result of the accident they had suffered injuries. The documentary evidence produced by them also shows that the injuries suffered by them had caused permanent disability in the case of Dhirajmal aged 37 years 16%, Narulal aged 38 years 14% and Rangji aged 42 years 14%. After determining their income at a modest amount Rs. 3600/- per month and application of appropriate multiplier, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation in their favour as noted above. To my mind, finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue No. 1 is in consonance with the record. The permanent partial disability caused by the injuries suffered by the claimants affected their earning capacity. The compensation awarded to them does not seem either excessive or unfair and there is no reason or scope for its further reduction. I am, therefore, inclined to agree to the findings of the learned Tribunal on issues No. 1 and 2. There seems no illegality either in facts or law so as to grant any indulgence in any of the appeals. 11. Consequently, all the three appeals are dismissed.