JUDGMENT
Panwar, J.
1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 22nd March, 1993 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 80,000/- in favour of the respondent-claimants and against the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) and its driver Bakhtawar Singh, owner of truck No. RRJ-1613 Lalit Kumar, driver Salam Mohammed and the insurer of the truck, the Oriental Insurance Company.
2. Aggrieved by the award impugned, the Corporation and dissatisfied with the quantum, the claimants, both have preferred two separate appeals.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties present, perused the judgment and record.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Corporation that the Tribunal fell in error in holding the Corporation liable to the extent of 50%. It was further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that the quantum is low and therefore, seeking enhancement.
5. In the instant case, the deceased Ambalal aged 65 years was a passenger of bus No. RNP 7702 owned by the Corporation which was driven rashly and negligently by its driver Bakhtawar respondent No. 13 on the road Kankroli to Ahmedabad at about 3.30 p.m. on 15.8.1986, while the said bus was plying in the area of village Amjara, at that relevant time, a truck No. RRJ 1613 came from opposite direction which was also driven rashly and negligently by its driver Salam Mohammed. Due to rash and negligent driving of the bus and the truck by the respective drivers, there was a head on collision between both the vehicles. Due to this accident, the passenger of the bus Amba Lal sustained severe Injuries and ultimately succumbed to injuries. On behalf of the claimants, AW-1 Smt. Kamla and AW-2 Ashok Kumar were examined. In rebutal, the Corporation and other non-applicants before the Tribunal did not lead any evidence. On appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties, Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said accident was result of rash and negligent driving of the Corporation’s bus and the truck in equal proportionate and accordingly, passed the award in favour of the claimants and against the Corporation, its driver and the owner and insurer of the truck in equal proportionate. AW-2 Ashok Kumar stated that he was traveling in the bus No. RNP 7702 owned by the Corporation from Bhilwara to Ahmedabad. Deceased Amba Lal was also a passenger of the said bus who was going to Ahmedabad. While the bus was plying near Bichhiwara on the road leading towards Arnor, at that relevant time, a truck came from opposite direction which collided with the bus. He further stated that the bus was plying at great speed as the bus was in process over taking the stationary truck. At that time, a truck No. RRJ 1613 which was also driven at great speed came from opposite direction and collided with the bus. Evidence of claimants remain unrebutied as the Corporation and other non-applicants before Tribunal did not lead any evidence. In my considered opinion, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of evidence and therefore, cannot be said to be erroneous. Accordingly, I hold that the driver of Corporation’s bus respondent No.3 as well as the truck driver were equally negligent in driving their respective vehicles which caused the said accident.
6. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the Corporation that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. The claimants also filed an appeal for enhancement. I have gone through the evidence of claimant AW-1 Kamla and AW-3 Ashok Kumar. The Tribunal while deciding the issue of quantum, came to the conclusion that the deceased was 65 years of age and monthly dependency of the claimants was determined @ Rs. 600/- per month, Taking into account the age and income of the deceased and the dependency of the claimants, Tribunal awarded sum of Rs. 80,000/- as compensation. It is settled law that in appeal, the quantum is interfered only if the amount is shocking low and highly inadequate or too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, in the instant case, award passed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be too low or too excessive.
7. In my considered opinion, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and needs no interference.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in both these appeals and
accordingly, they are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.