Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the claimant respondents.

2. Instant appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (in short the Act), has been preferred against the impugned award dated 18.10.2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ADJ, Court No. 1, Lucknow, in a Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 98 of 2009.

3. Late Bashir Ali who was travelling in a Jeep U.P. 43T/1289 for city and district Gonda on 5.12.2008, at about 8.00 a.m. in the morning on Gorakhpur-Lucknow National Hihghway near Kashi Vishwanath Petrol Pump in village Poore Tiwari Ka Purwa, suffered an accident with Bus No. U.P.93T/0181 belonging to appellant. It is alleged that the said Bus was being driven rashly and negligently resulting in collision with Jeep causing accident in question. In consequence of the accident, the Jeep was overturned and Bashir Ali suffered serious injuries. He succumbed to injuries during course of treatment at district hospital, Gonda. At the time of death, Bashir Ali was aged about 48 years, working in Diesel Loco Shed, Gonda as Assistant Mechanic on the salary of Ra.10000/- per month. While preferring claim petition, respondent claimants pleaded that accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the Bus in question.

4. Tribunal framed following issues during the course of trial :

1. Whether, on 5.12.2008, at about 8.00, deceased Bashir Ali was going to resume duty in city Gonda in the Jeep and the accident occurred near village Poore Tiwari Ka Purwa with the Bus of Raath Depot No. U.P.93T/0181, which was driven rashly and negligently resulting in collision with Jeep and in consequence thereof, Bashir Ali suffered with grievous injuries and succumbed to it when he was carried on for treatment to hospital?

2. Whether, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the driver of the Bus bearing No. U.P.93T/0181 was having valid and effective driving licence/permit?

3. Whether the aforesaid accident occurred on account of contributory negligence of the driver of Jeep No. U.P.43T/1289, in case yes, then its effect?

4. Whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation in case yes, then its quantum?

5. Whether the offending Vehicle No. UP93T0181 was insured on the date and time of the accident with O.P. No. 3 Reliance General Insurance Co,?

5. Parties have led oral and documentary evidence in support of their rival contentions. On behalf of the appellant respondent, it was pleaded before the Tribunal that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Jeep when it had tried to overtake the bus. The driver of the Jeep and the Company which has insured it has not been made party.

6. During the course of trial, the Tribunal considered the evidence led by the parties at length and recorded finding that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the bus and rejected the contention of the appellant respondent that it was outcome of contributory negligence caused by the driver of the Jeep (supra) and awarded compensation of Rs. 7,99,000/-.

7. Sri Akhtar Abbas while assailing the impugned award, raised two fold arguments. Firstly, that it is a case of contributory negligence and secondly, the compensation awarded is excessive since wife of the deceased employee, has been given compassionate appointment which has been not considered by the Tribunal.

8. So far as the contributory negligence is concerned, while refuting the contention of appellant respondent, the Tribunal relied upon the statement of PW-2 Peer Mohammad who is an eye-witness. PW-2 Peer Mohd., has made statement that accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the Bus of the appellant. The emphasis given by the Tribunal on the statement of PW-2, seems to be correct appreciation of evidence. The Tribunal has rightly relied upon the case in Jiju Kuruvilla and others v. Kunjujamma Mohan and others, 2013 ACJ 2141, where their lordships