the driver of the tempo and 30% negligence of the deceased. I am unable to understand the observation of the Tribunal as the Tribunal as observed that brake marks of the tempo were appearing on the road. It shows that the tempo was stopped on the road suddenly. No one knows deceased was travelling behind the tempo for how long distance. Admittedly, the driver of the tempo stopped the tempo suddenly on the road without giving any signal. As per the Motor Vehicles Rules if any vehicle has to stop, the driver of the vehicle has to give signal but in this matter, this did not happen, moreover offence is registered against the driver of tempo and he did not enter into witness box to prove the negligence of the deceased hence, I hold that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of the tempo. To prove the income of the deceased, the claimants have examined claimant No.1-Shobha, wife of the deceased. She has stated that deceased would run grocery shop and he would cultivate crop. The 7/12 extracts of the agricultural land are produced on record. These are at Exhibits-27, 28 and 29. In support of evidence of PW1, the claimants have examined Vaijnath Indure at Exhibit-43, the clerk in Legal Department of Siddeshwar Sugar Factory. He has produced the statement in respect of sugarcane supplied by claimant No.1-Shobha and payment thereof received by her for the year 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2013. The said statements are at Exhibits-45. The claimants have examined Shreni Hukumchand Shah, Chartered Accountant at Exhibit-37. He has stated that deceased used to pay income tax and sales tax in
