JUDGMENT :

P.N. Desai, J.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC. No. 517/2012 dated 26.11.2014 by the II Additional M.A.C.T. and Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Bidar, the Insurer has filed this appeal. The respondents No. 1 to 3 are the son and daughters of the deceased-Parvati respectively, and they happen to be the claimants. Respondent No. 4 is the owner of the vehicle who was the respondent No. 1 before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, (hereinafter shortly referred as 'M.A.C.T.').

2. The brief contention of the claimants before the M.A.C.T. was:-

That on 04.08.2012 in the morning the deceased-Parvati along with her son i.e., claimant No. 1 had been to their agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 25/A2 situated at village Hippalgaon. After attending the work on the same day they were returning to Bidar on a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-38-E-9961. The deceased was a pillion rider and her son claimant No. 1 was rider of the motorcycle. At about 10.15 a.m. when they came near the land of Ramanna Bombalgi on Chambol-Janwada road, another Honda Shine motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-38-K-8150 driven by its rider came behind in a high speed, rash and negligent manner and hit the hind portion of motorcycle of claimant No. 1. As a result the rider-claimant No. 1 and the pillion rider deceased-Parvati fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately they were taken to the Hospital, at Bidar. On the same day the pillion rider-Parvati succumbed to the injuries.

3. It is further contended that the deceased-Parvathi was hale and healthy, aged about 50 years. She was a government servant working as Attender in judicial department at Bhalki and drawing monthly salary of Rs. 15,919/-. The claimants contending that they being the dependents of the deceased-Parvati have filed the claim petition claiming total compensation of Rs. 33,50,000/- under various heads.

4. The respondent No. 1 owner of the offending vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-38-K-8150 Honda Shine motorcycle entered appearance and denied the entire contents of the claim petition and contended that he is not liable to pay the compensation. He has further contended that the vehicle in question is insured with respondent No. 2.

5. The Insurer-respondent No. 2 filed the written statement denying the manner of the alleged accident. The insurer also denied the age, profession and income of the deceased. The insurer has contended that their liability if any is subject to the limitation in the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and Rules. It is also contended that non-joinder of husband of the deceased as a party to the petition, the petition is not maintainable. With these main contentions insurer has prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings the Tribunal has framed the issues. In order to prove their case the claimant No. 1-Raju got examined himself as PW. 1 and got marked 14 documents Ex. P. 1 to 14 which consist of FIR, charge sheet, statements, spot panchanama, IMV report, P.M. report, D.L., service certificate and salary certificate of the deceased. On behalf of the respondents no evidence is led.

7. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 17,50,576/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. directing insurer to pay the same. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award the Insurer has preferred this appeal only on the following three grounds:-

a) That the claim petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party namely the husband of the deceased who happens to be a Class-I heir.

b) The MACT erred in awarding compensation under various heads to claimants No. 1 to 3 who being a major son and married daughters are not dependents, and

c) The award in respect of conventional heads is on higher side, and therefore requires to be modified with downward revision.

8. We have heard Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel for the Insurer, Sri. Sachin M. Mahajan, the learned counsel for respondents No.