JUDGMENT

Jaspreet Singh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 110-D of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1939 assailing the award dated 20.11.1991 wherein in a death case the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.24,200/- alongwith 9% interest from the date of the claim application till the date of this recovery.

3. Before adverting to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, it will be relevant to notice a brief resume of facts giving rise to the instant appeal.

4. Claim petition bearing No.62 of 1988 was filed by the original claimant-respondents against Jabriel Khan and Mohd. Khalid Khan the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle in question. As per the averments made in the claim petition, it was stated that on 08.05.1988 the father of the claimant-respondents, namely, Ambika Dutt Mishra was riding on his bicycle, however, a tractor bearing number URI/3694 was being driven rashly and negligently by the appellant no.1, as a result he hit the bicycle of Ambika Dutt who was crushed under the tractor. He received grievous injuries and the bystanders carried Ambika Dutt to the police station where he lodged a report against the appellant no.1. Thereafter he was taken to the district hospital where he under went treatment but unfortunately in the intervening night of 8/9.05.1988 he passed away. It is in the aforesaid context that the claim petition came to be filed.

5. The appellants filed a joint written statement and contested the claim primarily raising two pleas:-(i) the tractor in question was not involved in the accident at all; (ii) Ambika Dutt was riding his bicycle and another vehicle (Jeep) which belonged to a third party was being driven rashly and negligently who hit the bicycle of Ambika Dutt which was the actual cause of the accident i.e. the Jeep. There was no rashness or negligence of the appellants nor the said tractor was involved. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was stated that the claim petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. Upon exchange of pleadings, the Tribunal framed seven issues and after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident was an outcome of rash and negligent driving of the appellant no.1. It was also found that the tractor involved in the accident belonged to the appellant no.2. The age of the deceased Ambikat Dutt was held to be 68 years and considering the evidence available on record regarding the longevity in the family, the Tribunal noticed that since Ambikat Dutt did not suffer from any ailment and was fit enough to do his farming as well as ride a bicycle, accordingly he would survive for a further period of six years. It was also noticed that since he had more than three acres of land from which he was doing his farming apart from the fact that he was also doing astrological prediction (Jyotshi), accordingly he was able to earn Rs.1000/- every month. Considering the expenses incurred over his expenditure, mental trauma, funeral expenses and other such non-pecuniary heads the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.24,200/- alongwith 9% interest by means of award dated 20.11.1991. It is this award which is under challenge before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has completely misread the evidence; inasmuch as there were no witnesses worth its name who actually proved the occurrence of the accident as well as the involvement of the tractor in question. Without actually first ascertaining the involvement of the tractor and in absence of any cogent evidence merely because the tractor of the appellants was present at site,