Dinesh Mehta, J.

The present batch of appeals emanate from a common judgment and award dated 23.10.2001, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in five different claim cases emerging from one accident, which had been consolidated and decided conjointly.

2. Necessary and relevant facts are being narrated in a nutshell to appreciate the case of the appellants and also to find, as to whether, the appellants are entitled for the relief, as prayed for, in their appeals.

3. On the fateful day of 6th May, 1999, when a jeep bearing registration number RJ-30/P 0298 was plying on National Highway No. 8, a mini truck bearing registration number GRX 5484 collided with it. As a result of the said collision, four persons, namely Yusuf Mohammed, Mohammed Yusuf, Jamil Mohammed and Sangram Singh passed away; whereas, Smt. Rehana suffered injuries. The claimants filed five separate claims averring, inter alia, that the driver of their jeep Yusuf Mohammed was going on the correct side, when at about 3:00 p.m., near Gomti Chauhara, Lambodi, the offending mini truck being rashly and negligently driven by its driver Ram Chandra running on the right side of the road, in a haste of over-taking another vehicle, struck the jeep and caused the casualty.

4. After due appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal found that the driver of the offending truck was rash and negligent, while driving and the collision took place because of his carelessness. As the offending truck was insured with the New India Insurance Company, and there was no violation of the terms of the policy, the Tribunal held it liable to indemnify the owner of the mini truck, who was vicariously liable, for the headless and headless driving by its driver.

5. The appeals in question filed by the claimants are targeted towards the quantum of compensation for which, the appellants have raised scores of grounds, in the course of hearing.

6. Broadly and basically, the argument of learned counsel for the appellants, for all the appeals has been common: that all the deceased were small traders-merchants, having no fixed income, for whom production of documentary proof to substantiate their stand regarding the monthly/annual income, was not possible; the witnesses, being wives of the deceased, had appeared in the witness box and deposed on oath that their husband had been earning a particular amount; the Insurance Company had neither brought in any evidence to falsify the stand of the claimants, nor could they prove the testimony of such witnesses to be untrustworthy with the help of their cross-examination or otherwise. That being the fact situation, Mr. Sarupariya contended that there was no reason for the Tribunal to discard the testimony of the witnesses and to come to an imaginary figure. He added that such approach of the Tribunal cannot be countenanced, particularly when no reason or basis for adopting such figure has been given in its order.

7. Mr. Sarupariya emphasized that in the circumstances like this, particularly when no contrary evidence was available, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to have accepted the version of the claimants. He argued that the present case was a case of "evidence on oath against oath", and there was neither any reason to doubt or disbelieve the testimony of the claimants' witnesses, nor was the Insurance Company able to prove otherwise. With a pinch of bewilderment in his arguments, he pointed out that the witnesses, who had deposed on behalf of the Insurance Company had not even made any assertion that the deceased were earning a sum lesser than what had been affirmed by the claimants.

8. Mr. Sarupariya relied upon the following judgments to lend support to his arguments:-

(i) Smt. Kaushnuma Begum & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2001) AIR(Supreme Court) 485;

"