S.G. Shah, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. H.M. Parikh for the appellants, learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Sheth for defendant No. 1 and learned advocate Mr. K.K. Nair for defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 2, though duly served remained absent being driver of the vehicle in question, which was involved in the accident.

2. Appellant is original respondent No. 2 being owner of the vehicle in question, whereas defendant No. 1 is original claimant and defendant No. 3 is insurer of the vehicle in question. The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 27.03.2014 in MACP No. 743 of 2011 by the MACT of Anand, whereby though tribunal has awarded total amount of Rs. 6,74,983/- towards compensation for the accidental death of one Prabhatbhai B. Parmar, who was serving as a conductor in GJ 23 V 6606, the tribunal has bifurcated the liability between driver and owner on one hand and driver, owner and insurer on another hand, considering that, the liability of insurance company is restricted and limited under the Employees Compensation Act only. Therefore, out of total amount