1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 10.12.1992 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bali (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 28,000/- in favour of appellant claimants (for short 'the claimants' hereinafter referred to) and against respondents. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have preferred this appeal.

2. Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for decision of this appeal are that on 5.5.1990 at about 2.30 P.M. Rata Ram was proceeding on bicycle from Bali to Shrisela. When he reached near Officer's Colony, Bali and was opposite to newly constructed Krashi Mandi, at that relevant time a jeep bearing No. RRT 6098 came from behind, which was driven by respondent No. 1 Sesa Ram at great speed, rashly and negligently, hit the bicycle of Rata Ram, due to which Rata Ram fell down on 'Kachi Patari' (Bypath) of the Road and sustained severe head injury. Rata Ram succumbed to the injury. The said jeep was owned by respondent No. 2 Phool Chand and was under valid insurance with respondent No. 3 United India Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Insurance Company'). The claimants (appellants herein) filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 2,82,972/-. By judgment and award impugned, the Tribunal held deceased Rata Ram contributory negligent to the extent of 65% and the jeep driver respondent No. 1 Sesa Ram negligent to the extent of 35% and accordingly awarded compensation of Rs. 28,000/-in favour of the claimants.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment and award impugned and also scanned, scrutinised and evaluated the evidence produced by the parties.

4. In the claim petition, the claimants specifically pleaded that deceased Rata Ram was hit from behind by the said jeep, which was driven at a great speed, rashly and negligently by its driver respondent No. 1 Sesa Ram on 5.5.1990 at about 2.30 P.M. At the relevant time of the accident, the jeep involved in the accident plying on the said road has not been disputed. The respondents did not dispute death of Rata Ram due to head injury sustained by him. The only dispute raised by the respondents is that the deceased lost balance of his bicycle and fell down on the road. Report of this occurrene was promptly lodged with the Police Station Bali. The police promptly investigated the matter and recorded the statements of eye witnesses Jeva Ram Exhibit 17, Jalam Singh Exhibit 18 and Bahadur Puri Exhibit

19. Autopsy on dead body of Rata Ram was conducted vide Exhibit A-9, wherein Medical Jurist opined that cause of death is head injury. A charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the said jeep respondent No. 1 by the police for the offences under Sections 279 & 304-A, Indian Penal Code. Before the Tribunal, the claimants produced AW-1 Hanja Bai, AW-2 Jeva Ram and AW-3 Jalam Singh. Respondent No. 1 Sesa Ram was examined as NAW-1. AW-1 Hanja Bai, wife of the deceased deposed before the Tribunal that her husband Rata Ram was an employee of Rajasthan State electricity Board (R.S.E.B.) and his monthly salary was Rs. 1500-1600/-. She further deposed that her husband died due to the accident caused by the jeep and the claimants were dependent on the income of the deceased.

5. While deciding issue No. 1, the Tribunal held that the deceased himself was negligent to the extent of 65% and the jeep driver respondent No. 1 was negligent to the extent of 35%. Issue No. 1 reads as under:

Whether on 5.5.1990 Rata Ram was hit by jeep No. RRT 6098, driven by respondent No. 1 at a great speed, rashly and negligently, due to which Rata Ram died?

6. Burden to prove this issue was on the claimants. The claimants produced two eye witnesses of the occurrenc