Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, J.:- This is an appeal filed by the insurance company that had insured bus bearing No.PB-06-E-2838, owned by respondet No.6 herein. The appeal impugns the Award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur, dated 01.11.2014, by which a sum of Rs.6,80,000/- has been awarded as compensation to respondents No.1 to 4 herein, who were the claimants before the Tribunal, in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. The facts leading upto the filing of the claim petition, as taken from the impugned Award, are that Jaswant Singh, i.e. the late husband of respondent No.1, son of repondent No.2 and father of respondents No.3 and 4, was going on his motorcycle from Batala, to his village, Shahpur Goraya, alongwith one Bashir Masih as his pillion rider, on 01.06.2013.

His brother Jagmit Singh and one Gurbachan, are stated to have been following them on another motorcyle. At about 1:00 PM, when the deceased reached near King Palace, Kalanaur, the “offending vehicle”, i.e. bus bearing registration No.PB-06-E-2838, is stated to have come from the side opposite side, driven by respondent No.5 herein (respondent No.1 before the Tribunal), allegedly in a rash and negligent manner, which came on the wrong side of the road and struck against the motorcyle of the deceased, resulting in serious injuries. Both, Jaswant Singh and Bashir Masih, were taken to Civil Hospital, Kalanaur, where Jaswant Singh was declared dead and Bashir Masih was referred to the Civil Hospital at Gurdaspur.

On the statement of Jagmit Singh, an FIR was also registered against respondent No.5.

In the claim petition, it was claimed that Jaswant Singh was 41 years of age and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by running a dairy farm and by doing agricultural work. A compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- was claimed.

3. The driver and owner of the “offending vehicle” (present respondents No.5 and 6), filed a joint written statement denying the accident completely but further stating that the accident actually took place due to the negligence of the deceased himself, who struck against the bus, by coming to the wrong side on his motorcycle.

4. The appellant insurance company (respondent No.3 before the Tribunal), file a separate written statement alleging that respondent No.5, i.e. the driver of the bus, was not holding a valid driving licence and as such, there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, it was contended that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

5. The issues on negligence in driving and entitlement of compensation and validity of the driving licence having been framed, the learned Tribunal went on to appraise the evidence led before it.

6. As regards the question of negligence, the learned Tribunal relied upon the statement of PW2 Jagmit Singh, an eye witness of the accident and the complainant in the FIR (Ex.PB) registered against respondent No.5 herein. The testimony of the aforesaid witness was in terms of the manner of the accident given in the claim petition, against which, though respondent No.5 stood in evidence, his testimony was held to be not believable.

In his testimony, the said respondent (RW2 before the Tribunal), first stated that he was not driving the bus at the time of the accident and in any case it had taken place on account of the negligent driving of the deceased.

With no further evidence to rebut the aforesaid statement of the driver of the “offending vehicle”, the Tribunal, in the light of the testimony of PW2, as also the fact that respondent No.5 herein was facing a criminal trial, decided the issue of negligence in favour of the claimants and against the respondents.

7. As regards the compensation to be awarded, with no documentary evidence led by the claimants to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, from running a dairy farm and doing agricultural work, with not even any revenue rec