Hon'ble BHANSALI, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 16.7.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali ('the Tribunal'), whereby the application for compensation ('the application') filed by the appellants under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case may be noticed thus : an application under Section 163A of the Act was filed by the appellants, who are wife, daughter and mother of one Mohan Ram @ Mohan Lal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,68,300/- with the averments that Mohan Ram was travelling in Bus No.RJ-07-P-4245 on 30.1.2007 from Jodhpur to Rohit when on the National Highway No.65, the bus collided with Truck No.HR-38-G-4311, which resulted in death of Mohan Ram, a passenger in the bus. It was claimed that as the death occurred due to accident arising out of the use of the bus, the claimants were entitled to seek compensation as per Second Schedule to the Act from the owner and insurer of the bus jointly and severally. It was claimed that the deceased was aged 23 years and was working as Munim and Salesman with M/s. Kundanlal Pukhraj, Tripoliya Bazar, Jodhpur and used to get salary of Rs. 3,300/- per month and therefore, the claimants were entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,48,800/- towards loss of income, Rs. 2,000/- as funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- for loss of consortium / love and affection and Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of clothes, watch etc. i.e. in all Rs. 4,68,300/-.

3. A reply to the application was filed by owner of the bus and it was denied that the accident occurred on account of any mistake on part of the owner. The income and age of the deceased were disputed. It was indicated that regarding the accident, FIR was lodged by the driver of the bus against the truck driver and after investigation, challan was filed against Darshan Singh, the driver of the truck and as there was no negligence on part of the driver of the bus, the claimants are not entitled to claim any compensation.

4. On behalf of the Insurance Company also, a reply was filed, whereby the facts of accident and that the applicants were legal representatives of the deceased were denied. It was claimed that the driver of the bus was not in possession of effective and valid driving licence and bus was being operated without valid and effective fitness certificate and permit and consequently, for violation of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable. It was claimed that the owner, driver and insurer of the truck were necessary parties for the just decision of the case. Rest of the averments made in the claim petition were also denied.

5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :-

^^1- vk;k okgu cl la[;k vkj-ts- 07 ih 4245 dk pkyd ;qxyfd'kksj fnukad 30-01-2007 dks 09-30 ih-,e- ij jk"Vªh; jktekxZ la-65 ikyh tks/kiqj vke jkLrs ij tks/kiqj ls ikyh dh rjQ ckbz ikl ds okgu cl la[;k vkj-ts- la[;k 07 ih 4245 dks mlds Lokeh vizkFkhZ la[;k ,d vkuan izdk'k ds fu;kstu] fu;a=.k esa gksdj mlds ykHkkFkZ pykdj okgu Vªd la[;k ,p-vkj-38@th 4311 ls Vdjk;s tkus ls nq?kZVuk ?kfVr gqbZ] ftlesa e`rd eksgujke mQZ eksguyky ds pksVsa dkfjr gksdj muls mldh e`R;q gqbZ\ izkFkhZx.k

2- vk;k vizkFkhZ la- nks chek dEiuh vius tokc dh izkFkfed vkifÙk;ksa ,oa vfrfjä dFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij izfrdj izkfIr ds bl izkFkZuk i= esa izkFkhZx.k dks izfrdj vnk;xh ds vius nkf;Ro ls eqä gksus ;ksX; gS\ vizkFkhZ la- nks

3- vk;k izkFkhZx.k izfrdj izkfIr gsrq izLrqr bl izkFkZuk i= esa pkgh xbZ izfrdj jkf'k ;k vU; dksbZ U;k;laxr izfrdj jkf'k vizkFkhZx.k ls izkfIr ds vf/kdkjh gS] ;fn gkW rks fd dnj\ izkFkhZx.k

4- vuqrks"k\**

6. In support of the application, AW-1 Smt. Nainu Devi was examined and documents Exhibit-1 to 17 were exhibited. No evidence was led by the non-claimants.

7. It would be relevant to notice that the Insurance company filed an application under Order I, Rule 10 CPC for impleading the driver, owner and insurer of the Truck