R.Y. Ganoo, J.

1. The appellants are challenging the award dated 5.12.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pune in Claim Petition No.1215 of 2007. Few facts necessary for disposal of this first appeal are as under:-

2. The appellant no.1 married one Sandip Purandare. The appellant no.2 is the daughter born out of said marriage between appellant no.1 and said Sandip. The original applicant no.3 Shashikant was the father of said Sandip. During pendency of the said petition, said Shashikant expired. Hence present appellant nos.3a to 3d were brought on record as heirs of said Shashikant. This was done during the pendency of claim petition. The appellant no.4 is mother of said Sandip. She was also impleaded as heir of said Shashikant. The appellant no.3b is brother of said Sandip and is shown as such in his capacity as heir of said Shashikant. The appellant no.3(c) Mrs. Archana is the heir of said Shashikant and has been brought on record in the said capacity.

3. It is the case of the appellants that on 5.7.2007 at about 7.15 a.m., said Sandip Deshpande, since deceased (hereafter referred to as said Sandip) was riding Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.MH 02 AJ 5240 on Western Express Highway, Mumbai. Said Sandip was proceeding from Vile Parle towards Mumbai in moderate speed. According to the appellants at Gold Spot junction, below the over bridge a truck (dumper) bearing registration No.MH 04 BG 9913 came from Andheri side in excessive speed and gave dash to said Sandip. On account of the said impact, said Sandip sustained grievous injuries and he died on the spot. The police had after due investigation filed the chargesheet against the respondent no.2 i.e. the driver of the said truck under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. Present respondent no.1 is the owner of the said truck. The respondent no.2 was the driver of the said truck at the time of the aforesaid incident. The respondent no.3 is insurance company with whom the said truck was insured. On account of death of said Sandip, present appellant no.1, appellant no.2, said Shashikant (since deceased) and appellant no.4 filed an application for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Pune. (hereinafter referred to as the said Tribunal). That application was numbered as Claim Petition No.1215 of 2007. The original applicants applied for compensation by contending that said Sandip was working in Larsen and Tubro Ltd., and was earning a substantial salary to the tune of Rs.43,693/- and was getting annual performance linked reward to the extent of Rs.65,000/-. According to the original applicants they were entitled to get compensation for the reasons pleaded in the said claim petition. The compensation was claimed on various counts more particularly stated in the said claim petition.

4. The claim petition was opposed by Respondent No.3. It was decided ex-parte so far as respondent nos.1 and 2.

5. On behalf of the present appellants, appellant no.1 Archana gave evidence as P.W.1. Shashikant, father of said Sandip gave evidence as P.W.2. One Mr. Sharma was examined as P.W.3 by the present appellants. Said Sharma was in the employment of Larsen and Tubro Ltd. He was examined to prove the income of Sandip. It is required to be noted that after the death of Sandip present appellant no.1 married one Mr. Sandip Raikar. Said Sandip Raikar is earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- by way of salary. The appellant no.1 is also working with an organization known as Bharti Hospital, Pune as dietician. Learned Member of the said Tribunal framed following issues:

“1) Whether the applicant proves that deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle no.MH.04/BG/9913 owned by opponent no.1 and insured with opponent no.3?

2) Whether the applicants prove that deceased was earning Rs.43,993/- per month?

3) Whether applicants further prove that deceased was getting Rs.65,000/- p.a. towards performance onwards 2006?