JUDGMENT :

(R.M. Joshi, J.)

1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act raising challenge to the judgment and award dated 28th February, 2017 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 61/2015 by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Biloli.

2. Parties are referred to as claimants, insurer and owner for the sake of convenience.

3. The facts in nuthsell which led to filing of this appeal are narrated as under :

Claimants are wife, son, daughter and mother of deceased Rajeshwar who died in motor vehicular accident on 27th January, 2015. It is the case of claimants that along with other passengers, deceased was travelling in Tavera jeep bearing registration No. MH 26 V 4866 (offending vehicle) from Tirupati towards Naigaon. When the jeep reached the spot of the accident, it hit to the road divider and thereafter dashed against another car bearing registration No. KL 07 DX 8757. According to the claimants, driver of Tavera jeep was driving the vehicle in excessive speed and due to his negligence, accident in question has occurred. It is also claimed that crime is registered against the driver of Tavera jeep and charge-sheet has been filed against him. Claim petition was filed against the owner and insurer. The offending vehicle was duly covered by valid insurance policy during the relevant period with insurer. Claimants further contended that the deceased was employed earlier and was drawing salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month and thereafter for betterment he left the job and started business as jeweller. They claim to be dependent on the income of the deceased and compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- was sought from respondents / owner and insurer.

4. Owner filed written statement (Exhibit 18) and admitted the factum of occurrence of accident involving offending vehicle as well as death of deceased therein. It is however denied that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tavera jeep. Claim is also challenged on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party.

5. Insurer filed written statement at Exhibit 16 challenging maintainability of the claim on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. Insurer also denied contention of claimants with regard to the manner in which the accident has occurred so also the claim of income and compensation amount by them.

6. Learned Tribunal frames issues at Exhibit 20. On behalf of the claimants, claimant No. 1 Pallavi examined herself. They also placed reliance on documentary evidence. Owner as well as insurer did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal.

7. From the pleadings before the Tribunal and evidence adduced on record, following points arise for consideration of this Court :-

8. Learned counsel for the insurer submits that the Tribunal has allowed application filed by the insurer under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act and hence, insurer is entitled to challenge the award on all counts. It is submitted that the initial burden is on the claimants to prove the claim including the factum of occurrence of accident, negligence of driver of the vehicle insured as well as income of the deceased. According to him, claimant No. 1 is not eye-witness to the accident in question and as such there is no evidence with regard to occurrence of accident to ultimately hold that there was negligence of the driver of the jeep. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has committed error in considering income of the deceased during his employment as thereafter the