1. - The present appeal, filed under section 18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 read with section 134 of the Rules of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952, is directed against the judgment dated 28.11.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1504/2000, whereby the learned Single Judge partly allowed the appeal of the appellant- Insurance Company and reduced the amount of compensation to Rs. 26,81,000/- from Rs. 53,62,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beawar, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal').

2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the present respondents No. 1 to 5 (original-claimants) had filed a claim petition seeking compensation under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'M.V.Act') before the Tribunal, for the death of Shri Prabhudayal Ojha, who happened to be the husband of the respondent No. 1, father of respondents No. 2 and 3 and son of respondents No. 4 and 5. The said Prabhudayal Ojha had died in an accident which took place when he was travelling in a Car bearing registration No. WNC- 4093 which was hit by the Truck bearing registration No. HR-13-4455. According to the respondents claimants, the said accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said Truck and therefore they were entitled to get the compensation from the driver, owner and the insurance company of the said truck. The claimants had also alleged in the petition before the Tribunal that the deceased was doing his business of garments and leather in foreign country and was earning in pounds and that at the relevant time the value of one pound was equivalent to about Rs. 47 to 52. The said respondents-claimants had, therefore, claimed the compensation to the tune of Rs. 39,60,000/- with interest thereon. The said claim petition was resisted by the present appellant-insurance company by filing the reply denying the allegations and averments made in the petition and also further contending inter alia that there was no evidence produced by the claimants in respect of the income of the deceased.

3. The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants, awarded the compensation of Rs. 53,62,000/- with interest, vide award dated 15.5.2000. Being aggrieved of the said award, the present appellant had filed the Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1504/2000 before the learned Single Judge, who vide order dated 28.11.2001 partly allowed the said appeal by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs. 53,62,000/- to Rs. 26,81,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant insurance company has preferred the present appeal.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Praveen Jain for the appellant-insurance company that the impugned award and order passed by the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge respectively are ex-facie arbitrary and illegal, inasmuch as such a huge amount of compensation has been awarded though there was no evidence adduced by the claimants to show the income of the deceased. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge while observing that the claimants had failed to produce any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased had materially erred in confirming the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased must be earning minimum 1000 pounds per month. According to the learned counsel, though the learned Single Judge had reduced the amount of compensation to about 50% of the amount awarded by the Tribunal, the same was also exorbitant. In absence of any evidence adduced by the claimants, runs the submissions of Mr. Jain for the appellant, the income of the deceased was required to be taken only to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- per month as per the second schedule appended to the M.V. Act.

5. However, learned counsel Mr. Sushil Pujari appearing on behalf of Mr. D.P. Pujari for the resp