JUDGMENT

V.L. Achliya, J. - Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 16.08.2004 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.822/2000, the appellants (original claimants) have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties to appeal are referred as they are referred and described in the impugned judgment.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel representing respondent no.2. Perused the record and proceedings.

4. The appellants-claimants herein had filed application under section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as "the M.V. Act"), seeking compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- on account of accidental death of deceased Rameshlal Kisandas Bajaj, the husband of claimant no.1 and father of claimant nos.2 to 4, who died in motor vehicle accident occurred on 10.06.2000 at Ahmednagar. The claimants have approached with the case that on 10.06.2000 at about 2.45 p.m., the deceased was proceeding on his scooter bearing registration No.MH-16/C-6727 from D.S.P. Chowk to Patrakar Chowk. The offending vehicle i.e. truck bearing registration no.MP-09/K-3120 which was driven in an excessive and unmanageable speed came from the back side and gave dash to scooter on which deceased was proceeding. Deceased died on spot. The driver of truck prosecuted for committing act of causing accidental death of deceased. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by the respondent no.1 and insured with the respondent no.2.

5. On account of accidental death of deceased, the claimants have claimed the compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- with contention that at the time of accident, the deceased was 45 years of age and businessman by profession. He was running the business of sale of country made and foreign liquor in the name of his business Concern "M/s Rahul Wines" in the city of Ahmednagar. By running said business, the deceased was earning not less than Rs.10,000/- per month. The entire family of the deceased i.e. claimants were dependent on the income of the deceased. At the time of incident, the claimant nos.2 to 4 were studying in Convent School. Due to accidental death of their father, they were required to give up the convent school as they were unable to bear the expenses of convent school. It is claimed that the deceased was assessed for income tax and regularly submitting the income tax returns. On account of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, the claimants have claimed the compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-, making the respondent nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

6. The respondent no.1 i.e. the ownercum-insured of the offending vehicle though served failed to appear. The respondent no.2 alone appeared in the matter and contested the claim with contention that the claim made by the claimants is excessive. They denied the case of the claimants that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The respondent no.2 has denied their liability to pay the compensation with contention that there was breach of policy condition on the part of the insured as the driver of the truck was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle.

7. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the issues vide Exhibit-19 including the issue as to breach of policy conditions to be proved by the respondent no.2. In support of their case the claimants have examined the claimant no.1. She has steppe