Both the above appeals are taken together for final hearing considering that both the appeals challenge the same judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mapusa, dated 09.03.2007 in Claim Petition No. 66/2000. The parties shall be referred to in the manner they so appear in the cause title of the impugned judgment.

2. The claimant filed a claim petition claiming inter-alia that an accident took place on 05.07.2000 at Alto Porvorim near Nova Goa Complex when the husband of the claimant Mario Jose Vaz Ataide e Pinto was crossing the road and at that time a mini truck bearing no. GA-01-T-3710 suddenly came from Mapusa side and in a fast speed. The said truck driven in a rash and negligent manner and from the right hand side of the road and it gave a dash to the husband of the claimant and dashed against his scooter. It is further the case of the claimant that on account of the said impact, her husband was flung towards the other side of the road and sustained grievous injuries on account of which he expired at the hospital. The claimant further pointed out that her husband was 56 years of age at the time of the accident and earning salary of Rs.70,000/-per month and consequently the claimant has raised a total claim to the tune of Rs.47,43,376/-. The claim petition was filed against the respondent no.1 as well as the appellant herein besides an unknown person who was stated to be the driver at the relevant time. The respondent no.1 did not file any written statement nor contest the claim petition filed by the claimant. Only contest was on behalf of the respondent no.2-Insurance Company. The respondent no.2 in their written statement have disputed the claim petition filed by the claimant on the ground that they did not accept the claim of the claimant that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.70,000/-. The respondent no.2 further disputed the fact that there was any rashness and negligent on the part of the concerned vehicle. It is further contention of the respondent no.2 that the driver and the owner was respondent no.1 and further that at the relevant time the respondent no.1 did not hold any valid driving licence and consequently there was a breach of the terms of the policy which entitle the respondent no.2 to refuse the payment of the compensation. The learned Tribunal after framing the issues and recording of evidence by the impugned judgment and award dated 09.03.2007 partly allowed the claim petition and directed the respondents to pay jointly and severally a total sum of Rs.4,25,000/-together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition up to the actual payment together with costs to the claimant. Being aggrieved by the said judgment dated 09.03.2007, the claimant as well as the respondent no.2 have preferred the present appeals.

3. Shri E. Afonso, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2/appellant in First Appeal No. 166 of 2007 has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the original claim petition filed by the claimant is itself defective as according to him, the opponent no.2 shown therein was an unknown person as the driver of the concerned vehicle. The learned Counsel has pointed out that unless and until the driver has been made a party to the claim petition, the question of proceeding with the claim petition to award compensation to the claimant is totally unjustified. In support of his submissions he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2007(5) SCC page 428 in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Meena Variyal and others. The learned Counsel as such submits that on this count alone the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the claim petition filed by the claimant deserves to be rejected. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that the Tribunal whilst assessing the compensation payable to the claimant has assumed that the salary of the deceased was Rs.5000/-p