ORDER : 1. The present bunch of miscellaneous appeals has been preferred against the judgment dated 23.07.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner (“learned Tribunal”), whereby three claim petitions arising out of the same accident dated 02.02.2010 were decided by a common order. Since all the three claim petitions emanate from the same accident and have been adjudicated by a common judgment dated 23.07.2018, all the three appeals are being heard and decided together by this common order. 2. As stated in the claim petitions, on 02.02.2010, the deceased Shiv Upadhyay, Ashok Joshi and Mukesh Giri were travelling in a Mahindra Bolero Camper bearing registration No. RJ-27-1G-1330 and when the said vehicle reached near Atal Agriculture Firm, a bus of RSRTC having registered No. RJ-07-PA- 1166, coming from Nokha, driven by driver Ram Ratan S/o Ram Narayan in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the Bolero Camper, resulting in the death of four persons. 3. In connection with the said accident, three claim petitions were filed by legal representatives of the deceased - Shiv Upadhyay, Ashok Joshi and Mukesh Giri, alleging that the deaths were caused due to rash and negligent driving of the RSRTC bus by its driver Ram Ratan. The petitions were contested by the appellant–RSRTC, contending that there was no negligence on the part of its driver and that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the camper driver, Ram Chandra. 4. In support of the claim petitions, the claimants (AW.1) Nemi Chand (for Late Ashok Joshi), (AW.2) Sulochna (wife of Shiv Upadhyay), (AW.3) Shiv Giri (Father of Mukesh Giri), so also (AW. 5) Mohan and (AW.6) Ram Ratan (eye witness of accident) appeared before the learned Tribunal on behalf of respondent No.1. Various documents were exhibited by both parties in relation to the said accident, as well as to establish the income of the deceased and the claims under different heads. 5. The learned Tribunal, after considering the fact that in relation to the said accident, cognizance had already been taken against the driver, Ram Ratan for offences punishable under Section 279 and 304-A of the IPC, and after examining the site report prepared during the investigation, as well as the unrebutted evidence of the eye witness AW.5 Mohan Lal and AW.6 Ram Ratan, decided issue no. 1 in favour of the claimants. 1 in favour of the claimants. The Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RSRTC bus by its driver, Ram Ratan. 6. While considering the objections raised by the respondent RSRTC, in relation to issue no. 2, learned Tribunal held that since the Bolero Camper was not found to be negligent, no liability could be fastened upon the Insurance Company with which the Bolero Camper was insured. 7. The issue No. 3 with regard to contributory negligence of the Bolero Camper, was also decided against the appellant on the ground that even in criminal proceedings, the cognizance was taken only against Ram Ratan, who was the driver of the RSRTC bus, and further, in view of other evidence available on record, the Bolero Camper was not found to be guilty of any contributory negligence. 8. The learned Tribunal considered the evidence available on record in relation to the income of the deceased and by applying the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC , (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 , decided issue nos. 4, 5 and 6 in favour of respondents-claimants in the respective appeals. The Tribunal held the dependents of Late Shri Ashok Joshi entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.4,23,120/-, the dependents of late Shri Shiv Upadhaya entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.6,59,680/- and dependents of late Mukesh Giri entitled for compensation of tune of Rs.4,23,120/- along with interest @ 7% per annum. The apportionment/manner of the payment was also defined in the said order. Counsel for the respondents-claimants stated that the amount of compensation so awarded by the learned Tribunal is justified and the same cannot be said to be excessive. 9. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – RSRTC argued that the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to issue no. 1 and holding the driver of appellant - RSRTC guilty of rash and negligent driving is absolutely erroneous. 10. Counsel for the appellant argued that, as a matter of fact, in relation to the FIR lodged, a negative final report was initially submitted by the investigation agency, however, later on learned trial Court took cognizance against the driver Ram Ratan. 1 and holding the driver of appellant - RSRTC guilty of rash and negligent driving is absolutely erroneous. 10. Counsel for the appellant argued that, as a matter of fact, in relation to the FIR lodged, a negative final report was initially submitted by the investigation agency, however, later on learned trial Court took cognizance against the driver Ram Ratan. In this view of the matter, mere taking of cognizance being taken by the Criminal Court cannot be a conclusive proof of negligence on the part of the driver of the RSRTC Bus. 11. Counsel for the appellant further argued that non-consideration of the contributory negligence of vehicle Bolero Camper was also erroneous. It was contended that exoneration of Insurance Company of vehicle Bolero Camper was not justified. Learned counsel for the appellant also objected the quantum of compensation as determined by the learned Tribunal in relation to the claimants of all the three deceased persons. 12. Per contra, counsels appearing on behalf of respondents- claimants submitted that the findings of the learned Tribunal are based on the undisputed and uncontroverted evidence available on record. Hence, the award passed is wholly justified and does not call for any interference by this Hon’ble Court. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimants submitted that the findings regarding negligence of the RSRTC bus driver are justified and are supported not only by the cognizance order passed by the learned Criminal Court but also by the other evidence on record. It was further contended that the deceased were young and the compensation awarded cannot be termed excessive, warranting no interference by this Court. It was also argued that the appellants have failed to demonstrate under which specific head the compensation is excessive, and hence no ground is made out for its reduction. 14. Counsel for respondents stated that the findings of the learned Tribunal are based on a proper appreciation of the evidence available on record and therefore, the findings do not warrant the interference of this Court. 15. Upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that while adjudicating the issue of negligence, the learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that, upon consideration of the evidence on record, the competent criminal court had taken cognizance against the driver Ram Ratan for the offence of rash and negligent driving. 15. Upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that while adjudicating the issue of negligence, the learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that, upon consideration of the evidence on record, the competent criminal court had taken cognizance against the driver Ram Ratan for the offence of rash and negligent driving. Mere submission of a negative final report by the investigating agency cannot, by itself, be a sufficient ground to exonerate the bus driver from negligence, particularly when the competent criminal court, after evaluating the overall material on record, has taken cognizance of the offence of rash and negligent driving against him. 16. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal has also taken into account the statement of eye witnesses AW.5 Mohan Lal and AW.6 Ram Ratan which remain unrebutted. Thus, the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to issue no. 1, is wholly justified and does not call for interference by this Hon’ble Court. The adjudication of the issue nos. 2 and 3 is largely based upon the adjudication made in relation to issue no. 1. In view of the material available on record, it is clearly established that the RSRTC bus was driven rashly and negligently. Accordingly, the Tribunal rightly absolved the Insurance Company of the other vehicle - the Bolero Camper from liability to pay compensation and in view of the evidence on record, the same was rightly found not guilty of contributory negligence. 17. There apart, considering the age, proof of income of the deceased persons placed on record, it is found that the quantification of the compensation has been done by the learned Tribunal strictly in accordance with law laid down in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra) . The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to demonstrate that any illegality was committed by the Learned Tribunal in grant of compensation under any of the heads. 18. In view of the material available on record, the grant of compensation in all the three claim petitions is not found to be excessive and, therefore, does not call for interference of this Court. Accordingly, the compensation so awarded by the learned Tribunal is not liable to be reduced. 19. This Court finds that the finding of the learned Tribunal are based on sound reasons and by appreciating proper evidence on record. Accordingly, the compensation so awarded by the learned Tribunal is not liable to be reduced. 19. This Court finds that the finding of the learned Tribunal are based on sound reasons and by appreciating proper evidence on record. The appellant has failed to show any error, much less an error said to be apparent on the face of record. 20. In view of the same, the order impugned dated 23.07.2018 does not call for any interference by this Court. Therefore, the appeals preferred by the appellant -RSRTC are dismissed. 21. Stay applications and all pending applications, if any, dismissed accordingly.