1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 13.9.1995 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal'), whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,11,000/- as compensation against the respondents No. 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the vehicle involved in the accident jointly and severally and dismissed the claim against respondent No. 3 National Insurance Company Ltd.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the award Impugned, the appellant-claimants (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants') came in appeal o before this Court.

3. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are that; the claimants filed a claim petitioner before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs. 19,91,500/-. The cese of the claimants as set up before the Tribunal is that on 24.4.1992 at about 3.00 p.m., deceased Devi Lal was walking by the side of rocky way, at that relevant time, a tractor bearing No. RJ06/R-0119 which was driven rashly and negligently by its driver respondent No. 2 Gulab Raigor, suddenly went over the rock and turned turtle and fell on this, the deceased Devi Lal who was walking by the side of rocky way. The said Tractor turned turtle and fell on Devi Lal. Due to this accident, Devi Lal sustained injuries on his person and ultimately succumbed to injuries. The tractor was owned by respondent No. 1 and his brothers namely Rupa and Ladu Lal jointly and was driven by respondent No. 2. At the relevant time, the tractor was insured with respondent No. 3. It was averred that the deceased Devi Lal was 25 years of age and he used to earn Rs. 22,000/- to 23,000/- per annum as such his monthly income was Rs. 1850/-. He was vegetables vendor and in addition to this, he used to supervise the loading and unloading of the trucks in mines. It was also pleaded that widow of deceased, his three children and parents were fully dependent on the deceased. The driver and owner of the said tractor though served but did not file their written statements, however, a written statement was filed by respondent No. 3 (original non-applicant No. 5) National Insurance Company, wherein, a specific plea was raised that the deceased was travelling in the tractor by sitting over its mudguard and, therefore, the respondent Insurance Company is not liable for the compensation. The Tribunal framed as many as 3 issues and tried the case. While deciding issue No. 1, Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said accident was a result rash and negligent driving of the said tractor by its driver respondent No. 2 Gulab Raigor. While deciding the issue No. 2, the Tribunal held that the deceased was sitting over the mudguard of the said tractor and, therefore, Insurance Company is not liable and while deciding the issue of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal assessed and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,11,000/- as compensation against the respondents No. 1 and 2.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record. Scrutinised and evaluated the evidence available on record.

5. A.W. 1 Bhawana father of the deceased stated on oath before the Tribunal that due to accident caused by the aforesaid tractor, his son Devi Lal succumbed to injuries, the said tractor was owned by Ramchandra respondent No. 1. He further stated that the deceased Devi Lal was sole bread earner of the family and they were wholly dependent on him. Deceased was the vegetables and fruits vendor, he used to carry vegetables and fruits in a bus from Mandalgarh to Aroli, where he used to sell the same. He was also engaged in loading and unloading of the trucks on contract, his monthly income was about Rs. 1800-2000/-.

6. A.W. 2 Chhitar who is the witness of the site map has stated that he was present when the site was inspected by the police near to Mandalgarh Krishi Upaj Mandl He further stated that there is a slop of rocky, where the tractor was hanging and Devi Lal was lying underneath the t