MACApp. 7/2005 BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr Das, learned senior counsel for the appellant. This is an appeal preferred by the insurer of the bus bearing registrati on No. AS-25-B-0886 involved in the accident on 27.1.2002 at about 5-30 p.m. resulting in the death of one Tej Narayan Dubey , the predecessor-in-inte rest of the present respondents. The claim petition filed by them before the learned Tribunal was conte sted by the respondent insurer. The respondents claimants examined two wit nesses. The appellant insurer also adduced oral evidence. The No fault liabilit y amount of Rs.50,000/- granted by way of an interim relief was also deposited by the appellant insurer and the same was withdrawn by the respondents claima nts. The learned tribunal on a consideration of the pleadings and the evidenc e on record awarded an amount of Rs.6,60,000/- as compensation. Apportionments t hereof amongst the respondent claimants were also provided thereby. In arriving at this finding, the learned tribunal accepted Rs.5000/- as the monthly income of the deceased and after deducting 1/3 thereof, worked out the monthly loss of dependency tobe Rs.40,000/-. Having regard to the age of the deceased, multiplie r of 16 was applied. Adding Rs.10,000/-each for funeral expenses and loss of co nsortium , the final compensation was quantified at Rs.6,60,000/-. Mr Das has urged that in absence of any categorical finding by the lear ned tribunal that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle involved, the appellant insurer company could not have been made li able. He has further urged that though the respondent claimants mentioned the m onthly income of the deceased at the time of his death tobe Rs 10,000/- no evide nce to that effect having been adduced, the learned tribunal had fallen in erro r in assuming the same to be Rs.5000/ in assessing the amount of compensation o n the basis thereof. Upon hearing the learned senior counsel for the appellant, this court is not persuaded to accept any of the above pleas. A bare perusal of the impugn ed judgment and award indicates not only the involvement of the aforementioned b us in the accident, but also the cause of the accident tobe rash and negligent driving of it at the relevant point of time. Though no overwhelming evidence with regard to the monthly income of the deceased has been produced by the resp ondent claimants, having regard to the fact that at the time of death , the dec eased was an engineer , it is not unlikely that he then had been drawing Rs.5000 /- as monthly salary. Judged by the earnings of a daily wage earner in today’s context as well, the above supposition cannot be construed to be illogical. In the above view of the matter, having a realistic view of the facts an d circumstances of the case, this Court is of the unhesitant opinion that the im pugned judgment and order does not warrant any interference at this end. The app eal lacks in merit and is dismissed. No costs.