Dinesh Chandra Somani, J.

1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation has been preferred by the claimant/appellants against the judgment and award dated 31.03.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran (hereinafter referred as "the Triunal") in Claim Petition No. 144/2007 titled as Renu Kanwar and Others vs. Mohanlal and Another, whereby, the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 4,57,000/- to the claimant/appellants alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

2. Skeletal material facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 02.06.2007, Motisingh was going towards Nareda by motorcycle, when he reached nearby Patheda Road Ki Puliya, Shivaji Colony Ke pass in Baran, a Jeep bearing No. RJ-28-T-0180 driven rashly and negligently by it's driver non-claimant/respondent No. 1 Mohan Lal, came from opposite direction and hit the motorcycle. Motisingh sustained grievous injuries in the accident and died on the spot. FIR of the incident was lodged at Police Station Kotwali, Baran bearing FIR No. 244/2007 and after investigation charge-sheet was filed for trial of offence under Section 279 & 304-A of IPC against the non-claimant/respondent No. 1.

3. Claimant/Appellants being widow, two minor sons and parents of the deceased have filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation of Rs. 45,82, 000/-. It is averred in the claim petition that at the time of accident, the deceased Motisingh was 26 years aged having good health. Deceased Motisingh was Muneem at medical store of Ashu Gupta and was receiving Rs. 4,500/- per month from there. He was earning Rs. 3,500/- per month from his agricultural land also.

4. Non-Claimant/Respondent No. 1 opposed the claim petition by filing reply thereto. The non-claimant admitted the fact of registration of FIR, registration number of the vehicle, names of the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle as stated in the claim petition and denied all other material averments of the claim petition, and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Non-Claimant/Respondent No. 2 opposed the claim petition by filing reply thereto. The non-claimant admitted the fact of registration of FIR, Registration number of the vehicle, names of owner and insurer of the vehicle, and denied all other material averments of the claim petition. The non-claimant also averred that driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license at the relevant time, therefore, the answering non-claimant is not responsible for payment of compensation to the claimants and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against insurance company.

6. On basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed as many as four issues.

7. In support of the claim petition, claimants examined AW-1, Renu Kanwar and exhibited 11 documents. Non-claimant/respondent No. 1 did not produce any evidence. Non- claimant/respondent No. 2 examined NAW-1 Virendra Singh and exhibited insurance policy as Ex.A-1.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Tribunal decided issue no. 1 in favour of the claimants and against the non-claimants in the manner that it is proved that on 02.06.2007, non-claimant No. 1 was driving the Jeep No. RJ-28-T0180 rashly and negligently and hit the motorcycle, whereby Motisingh (the deceased) going on the motorcycle, sustained injuries and died. Learned Tribunal decided issue No. 2 against the non-claimant/respondent No. 2 in the manner that contravention of the insurance policy is not proved. Learned Tribunal decided issue No. 3 and 4 in favour of the claimants and against the non-claimants in the manner that claimants are entitled to get compensa