The National Insurance Company Ltd., filed this Appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act), assailing the award dated 16-9-2005,passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XVIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.1724 of 2003.

2. On 25-5-2003 the 1st respondent and his wife Shanthamma were travelling in an Auto bearing No. AP-28-V-22 from Lingampally to Mehdipatnam. When the auto reached the campus of Hyderabad Central University, a lorry bearing No. AAT 1789, owned by the 4th respondent and insured with the appellant, is said to have come in a rash and negligent manner, in the opposite direction; and hit the auto, on the wrong side. Shanthamma received multiple injuries and died on the spot. Crime No.201 of 2003 was registered by the Chanda Nagar Police Station, under Section 304-A of I.P .C. against the Driver of the lorry.

3. The respondents 1 to 3 (for short the respondents), who are the husband, daughter and son of Shathamma, filed O.P., claiming a sum of Rs.4 lakhs as compensation. They pleaded that Shanthamma was running a roadside hotel, opposite to the Indian institute of Information Technology, Gachibowil, and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. It was pleaded that on account of her death, the family was deprived of her household management, and financial assistance.

4. The 4th respondent did not contest the O.P. The appellant alone filed a counter affidavit, denying all the material averments in the O.P. The existence of insurance coverage was disputed and it was pleaded that the driver of the lorry did not hold valid driving licence, at the relevant point of time. The compensation claimed by the respondents was stated as excessive.

5. Through its order under appeal, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,67,000/- as compensation, with interest at 7.5% per annum, and apportioned the same among respondents.

6. Sri T. Ramulu, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents failed to prove the income of the deceased, and that there was no basis for the Tribunal in treating it as Rs.3,000/- per month. He contends that, in such cases, the income prescribed in Schedule II, namely Rs.15.000/per annum, ought to have been taken into account. He further submits that the O.P. was defective, inasmuch as the owner and insurer of the auto were not impleaded in the O.P.

7. Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the Tribunal followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in determining the annual income of the deceased, and that the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted. He contends that even assuming that the deceased was not earning any income, the loss, on account of the death of a housewife, cannot be ignored. Learned counsel points out that the evidence on record clearly disclosed that the accident occurred wholly on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry, and that the award passed by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference.

8. From the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant, two points arise for consideration in this appeal, viz., whether the O.P. was defective, for the reason that the owner and insurer of the auto were not impleaded in the O.P., and whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.

9. The first aspect would have assumed much relevance, if there was any scope, for the driver of the auto was also being held responsible for the accident. Even if the liability for the accident was apportioned between the drivers of the lorry, and the auto, the failure of the respondents to implead the owner and insurer of the auto, would not have any impact on the liability fastened to the appellant. For instance, if the drivers of the lorry and auto were held responsible to the extent of 50% each, the only consequence of non-impleading the owner and driver of the auto would have been, that the respondents could not have recovered the corr