PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL, J.

1. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 happen to be owners of the bus and the offending truck respectively and aforesaid two vehicles have been insured by respondent no.3-National Insurance Company Limited. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that there is no order of pay and recovery. Hence no step for fresh service of notice is required to be taken for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and on the submission of the learned counsels for the appellants and respondent no. 3, heard both the parties on this miscellaneous appeal.

2. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 16.11.2011 and award dated 12.12.2012 passed by the 9th Additional District Judge cum Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Muzaffarpur in Claim Case No. 204 of 2007 / 22 of 2011 whereby the learned Tribunal allowing the claim petition directed the opposite party no.3- National Insurance Company Limited to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,74,000/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the payment of compensation to the claimants.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that claimants filed Claim Case No. 204 of 2007 / 22 of 2011 under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for awarding compensation on account of death of the deceased Mundrika Singh in the Motor Vehicle Accident with the case in succinct that the said Mundrika Singh happened to be driver of the bus bearing registration no. BR 1P 3969. On 06.07.2007 at 3 AM when he arrived at J.K. High School near Traffic Chowk, Begusarai with his bus, a truck bearing registration no. UP 17A 6717 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver coming from the western side dashed the bus inflicting serious injury to Mundrika Singh. He was rushed to Sadar Hospital, Begusarai but he succumbed to injury during the course of treatment. Aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by its driver at the relevant time of accident. Regarding the aforesaid accident, Begusarai Town P.S. Case No. 252 of 2007 was registered. The deceased was working as driver of the aforesaid bus and the aforesaid bus was hailing to Manibhushan Kumar. The deceased was 38 years 6 months old at the time of accident and used to get Rs. 4,000/- per month as salary and Rs. 50/- per day as diet allowance.

4. Opposite party nos. 1 and 2 did not put their appearance in the case despite service of notice while the opposite party no. 3-National Insurance Company Limited putting its appearance in the case filed written statement. Claimants also adduced ocular as well as documentary evidence in buttress of their case.

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

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the claimants have preferred the present miscellaneous appeal.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was aged about 38 years 6 months at the time of accident. Besides the ocular evidence, appellants have filed voter identity card which indicates the age of the deceased as 33 years in the year 2002 and as per the aforesaid voter identity card the deceased was aged about 38 years 6 months at the relevant time of accident. In the post-mortem report age of the deceased has not been mentioned though it is mentioned in the inquest report as 50 years and the learned Tribunal relying upon the aforesaid age as mentioned in the inquest report has wrongly assessed the age of the deceased as 50 years. The age of the deceased as mentioned in the inquest report does not happen to be decisive ascertainment of the age as the inquest report was prepared by the police personnel merely on the basis of guessing without perusing the document regarding the age of the deceased while the age adverted in the voter identity card which is treated as document of identity of the person is more authentic an