1. The appeal, at the instance of claimant-widow, is directed for enhancement of the amount awarded by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal. Ranchi, in Compensation Case No. 155/93 on account of death of her husband Late Binod Bihari Singh in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 29.5.93 Late Binod Bihari Singh and Davendra Kumar Giri were going to Dakra from Ranchi in a Jeep bearing Registration No. BR-13-9137 which was being driven by Davendra Kumar Giri. When they reached near village Murgu a Dumper bearing Registration No. BR-14C-0248 which was coming from Lohardaga side drive rashly and negligently in a high speed dashed the jeep due to which both the persons received multiple injuries and consequently succumbed to injuries.

3. The claimants case is that her husband Late Binod Bihari Singh was a Senior employee in C.C.L. and was a Senior Executive Engineer and was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 6,725/- and as such she claimed a sum of Rs. 80.00.000/- by way of compensation for the death of her husband who was aged only 40 years,

4. Owner of the Dumper, namely, M/s. G.S. Atwal and Co. (Engg.) Pvt. Ltd.. appeared and filed their statement denying and disputing the allegation of negligence in driving the Dumper. The case of this respondent was that because of the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep, accident took place. The respondent C.C.L. being the owner of the Jeep also field written statement alleging that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Dumper. Respondent-Insrurer of the Jeep also alleged rash and negligent driving of the Dumper. It is worth to mention here that the Dumper was not insured with any of the Insurance Company.

5. The Tribunal after considering the evidence recorded a finding that the deceased, Binod Bihari Singh died in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving by both the drivers of Jeep and the Dumper. However, the Tribunal held that since no documentary evidence with regard to the income of the deceased Binod Bihari Singh has been adduced by the claimant the notional .income of the deceased was worked out at Rs. 15.000 per annum and on the basis of the notional income the Tribunal assessed compensation of Rs. 1.39.750/- and held that both the owner of the Dumper and the insurer of the Jeep are liable to pay half and half.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant contended that the claimant in her evidence very categorically stated about the employment of her husband and also the monthly salary which he was getting at the time of accident. Learned counsel submitted that Tribunal was in error in holding that no evidence was produced to show that the deceaseds monthly income was Rs. 6.725/-.

7. Mr. S.N. Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the owner of the Dumper, namely, M/s. G.S. Atwal and Co. (Engg.) Pvt. Ltd. has made his argument on the merit of the appeal and also on the cross-objection filed by owner of the Dumper. The cross-objection has been filed against the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles.

8. In the claim application, it has been categorically stated by the appellant-claimant in column-4 of the application that the deceased was a Senior Executive Engineer (Excavation) at Peeparwal Project of C.C.L. Against column-4 of the application she has mentioned the gross monthly income of the deceased of Rs. 6.725/-. In the written statement, filed by the respondents-owner of the vehicle, there is no denial at all with regard to the employment of the deceased or the monthly income which he was earning from the employer -C.C.L. On the contrary, in the written statement filed by the respondents, the employer, the monthly income of the deceased has admitted.

9. The claimant who is the widow in her evidence has categorically stated that her husband was employed in C.C.L. and was Senior Executive Engineer (Excavation). She further