1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the appeal against respondent no.2 stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order. Respondent no.2 happens to be the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent no.1 is the insurer of the said vehicle and by the impugned order the insurer-United India Insurance Company Limited has been directed to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. Hence, dismissal of the appeal against respondent no.2 has no impact on this appeal against respondent no.1 and the appeal is maintainable.

3. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 22.02.2010 and award dated 21.04.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge-IV-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Gaya in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 114 of 2008/5 of 2010, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded the final compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,02,560/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing application till its realisation and directed the opposite party no.1- United India Insurance Company Limited to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation along with the interest to the claimants. Later on opposite party no.1 made payment of the same.

4. Factual Matrix of the case is that the claimants Parmeshwar Yadav and Shiv Kumari Devi who happen to be the parents of the deceased Satish Yadav have filed Motor Accident Claim Case No. 114 of 2008 / 05 of 2010 under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum with the case in succinct that his son Satish Yadav aged about 21 years was a Khalasi of a Truck bearing Registration No. BR-2A-4101 and used to earn Rs. 2500/- per month as salary and Rs. 20/- per day as meal allowance from the said vocation. On 12.05.2007, the said Satish Yadav along with the informant Kedar Yadav had gone to his Sarhu at village Arsi Khurda, P.S.-Gurua and after taking meal, they went to Bhurha temple to attend the marriage ceremony. Kedar Yadav was standing near the temple while Satish Yadav went at Bhurha River Bridge Road and standing there and watching the people taking bath in the river. In the meantime, a Dumper bearing Registration No. JH 2B 8229 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver arrived from southern side and dashed Satish Yadav resulting into his death at the spot. The informant rushed at the place of occurrence and found the dead body of the deceased lying in the pool of blood. The driver of the dumper left the scene leaving the dumper at Mirchak Chowk. Regarding the said accident, Gurua P.S. Case No. 37 of 2007 was lodged under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Both the Insurance company and the owner of the offending vehicle put their appearance in the said case and filed their respective written statements.

6. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award as detailed in the earlier paragraph.

7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the claimants have preferred this appeal.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was a Khalasi of a truck bearing Registration No. BR 2A 4101 hailing to Rambali Yadav and the said owner of the truck examined by the claimants as AW-4 has substantiated the factum of working of the deceased on his truck as a Khalasi and giving of Rs. 3100/- per month as salary to him. He has also proved the salary certificate issued by him in favour of the deceased marked as Exhibit-1. But the learned lower court turned down the aforesaid evidence of the claimants and assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 2500/- per month merely on the ground that the said income of the deceased has been claimed by the claimants in their claim petition. The said finding of the learned Tribunal is not appreciable and correct. A