Ramachandran Nair, J.

These two appeals arise from the judgment in O.P.(MV) No.1395/2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. The insurance company is the appellant in M.A.C.A. No.1075/2009 and the claimants before the Tribunal are the appellants in M.A.C.A. No.2974/2009. Before the Tribunal, the claimants filed application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation consequent on the death of the late husband of appellant No.1 in M.A.C.A. No.2974/2009. Appellant No.2 therein is the daughter.

2. The accident occurred on 7.11.2000 at 4.45 p.m. The deceased Sri Omanakuttan was riding his scooter bearing Reg. No.KL- 4/D-5090 through Kozhencherry - Pathanamthitta public road from Pathanamthitta to Chengannoor, i.e. from east to west. The accident spot is near Chirackala junction and the offending vehicle is a motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KL-5/C-1997. The first respondent before the Tribunal was driving it and the said vehicle was coming from west to east. It hit the scooter, as a result of which the deceased fell down and sustained severe injuries. He was immediately taken to Muthoot Medical Centre, Kozhencherry and was treated there from 7.11.2000 to 8.11.2000 on which date he was taken to Pushpagiri Hospital, Thiruvalla for better treatment. He succumbed to the injuries on 12.11.2000 at 3 a.m. at the said hospital.

3. The claimants raised a total claim for Rs.41,95,000/- as compensation and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.27,13,495/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition (20.11.2000) till realisation and cost of Rs.60,000/-.

4. The deceased was nearing 42 years of age at the time of accident (his date of birth being 20.5.1959). It was contended that he was working as an Aircraft Mechanic at Qatar Emirates Air-force and was getting a monthly income of Rs.50,000/-. Before he joined Qatar Air-force, he was working in Indian Navy, as Helecopter Mechanic from 1975 to 1986.

5. We heard learned Senior Counsel for the insurance company Shri George Cherian and Shri A.N. Santhosh, learned counsel appearing for the claimants.

6. The Tribunal found, on the evidence adduced by the claimants, that the rider of the offending vehicle was negligent in causing the accident. P.W.1 is appellant No.1 in M.A.C.A. No.2974/2009 who is the widow of the deceased and P.W.2 was examined to prove the income and prospects of the deceased. The documents marked on the side of the appellants are Exts.A1 to A24. The respondents did not examine any witness and did not produce any documents also and the owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte.

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the insurance company, Shri George Cherian submitted that it was the contention of the Company that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the deceased also. It is submitted that even though originally the rider of the motor cycle was impleaded as first respondent, later he was removed from the party array. Therefore, the finding regarding negligence on the part of the driver, cannot be sustained. It is submitted that the first respondent before the Tribunal was a necessary party and any finding on negligence without him in the party array cannot be accepted at all. Learned Senior Counsel therefore sought for a remand of the matter to the Tribunal for fresh trial.

8. In support of his contention that the driver of the offending vehicle is a necessary party, he invited our attention to Rules 377 and 378 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. It is submitted that Rule 377 will show that the Tribunal will have to send a copy of the application together with a notice fixing the date for appearance, to the owner, driver and insurer. It is submitted that Rule 378(1) will also show that mention is made about the right of the owner, driver and insurer to file written statement. It is submitted that a reference to the form for filing application for compensation, viz. Form "Comp.A" prescribed under Rule 37