An appeal against the award of a Claims Tribunal is limited to the grounds mentioned in Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. A person not aggrieved by an award cannot prefer any appeal against the award of the Tribunal.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by Messrs Kantilal and Brothers and the Vulcan Insurance Co. Ltd. against the award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Compensation Tribunal for Calcutta and 24-Parganas in favour of the respondents before us who were the petitioners before the Tribunal below.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the claim of the petitioners before the Tribunal are required to be briefly stated. One Anurup Chandra Banerjee, a retired District and Sessions Judge of the State of Bihar aged about 72 years was knocked down by a private Ambassador car which was running at a great speed without giving any signal or sounding any horn. After the victim had been run over by the car, the driver did not slow down the speed but ran away without making any attempt for rendering medical aid to the injured. As a result thereof the victim died. The driver of the offending car was convicted and sentenced under Section 304-A of the I. P. C. The heirs and successors of the deceased were Ramarani Debi, the widow, Amiya Mukherjee, the daughter and Ashim Kumar Banerjee and Arun Banerjee, the sons. They filed an application for compensation in prescribed form pn the death of Anurup Chandra Banerjee before the Motor Accidents Claims Compensation Tribunal. The claim was for a sum of Rs. 90,000/ -. The appellants were the opposite parties before the Tribunal. They filed separate objections to the claim made by the petitioners. Messrs Kantilal and Brothers are the owners of the offending car duly insured. The Vulcan Insurance Co, Ltd. were the insurers.

( 3 ) THE learned Judge presiding over the Tribunal on consideration of the evidence on record and in the facts and circumstances of this case held that the petitioners were entitled to a sum of Rupees 28,536/- towards compensation along with the costs of the application including the lawyer's fees assessed at Rs. 100/- payable by the Vulcan Insurance Co. Ltd. and an award was accordingly made. Against that the present joint appeal has been preferred by the two opposite party-appellants. A cross-objection under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Civil P. C. has also been filed by the respondents.

( 4 ) MR. Ghosal appears on behalf of "the appellants while Mr. Seth represents the petitioner-respondents who filed the cross-objection against the award passed for a sum less than the one claimed.

( 5 ) A preliminary objection has been taken by Mr. Seth as to the maintainability of the appeal. Three points require consideration in this connexion. It has been urged, first, that the Vulcan Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Co.) have no right to prefer an appeal challenging the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal. Secondly it is to be seen whether Kantilal and Bros. owning the offending car have any locus standi to prefer the present appeal. Lastly, it is to be considered whether a joint appeal against the quantum of compensation can be filed by both the owners of the offending car as well as the insurer and whether it is maintainable.

( 6 ) IN order to appreciate the points raised, we are to take note of certain facts in this case. It appears from the judgment of the Tribunal that at the time of hearing both the opposite party appellants did not dispute the death of the victim being run over by the offending car due to the negligence and rashess on the part of the driver. The only bone of contention between the petitioners and the opposite parties related to the quantum of compensation to be assessed on the death of the victim. We have gone through the grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal and we find that all the grounds relate to the question of assessment of compensation and the basis thereof. Mr. Ghosal, the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants also wanted to urge his submissions challenging the amount of compensation fixed by the Tribunal as excessive, unreasonable and unfair. Admittedly, therefore, in this appeal, the appellants want