Kuldip Singh, J.—This appeal has been filed against the award dated 25th May, 2001 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kullu in Claim Petition No. 3/2000 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10, 80,000/- to the claimants on account of death of Prem Singh in an accident along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The parties in this judgment are referred in the same manner as referred in the impugned award. The award amount has been ordered to be paid by respondents No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally.

2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that Prem Singh husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioners No. 2 to 4 and son of petitioner No. 5 was hit by Scooter at Dhalpur Chowk, Kullu on 29th November, 1999. The petitioners filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) claiming compensation of Rs. 28 lacs on account of death of Prem Singh. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No. 1 Gopal Thakur was driving the Scooter at the relevant time. The accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Gopal Thakur. The respondent No. 2-Liladhar Thakur is the owner of the Scooter and respondent No. 3 New India Assurance Company is the insurer of the Scooter.

3. The deceased Prem Singh was employed as Horticulture Development Officer, Kullu Block. On 29th November, 1999 when Prem Singh had virtually crossed the road the Scooter with no number plate but bearing Engine No. 398059 Chasis No. CIMF 393953 came from Bus Stand side in a high speed and negligent manner. The Scooter was being driven by respondent No. 1 and it struck against Prem Singh causing head injury. Prem Singh was taken to District Hospital, Kullu where he died on 30th November, 1999. The deceased at the time of death was getting Rs. 15,881/- salary and he was also additionally earning Rs. 3,000/- from agriculture. The petitioners were totally dependent upon his income. On these’ facts, the claim petition was filed.

4. The respondent No. 1 driver filed reply and admitted the accident but denied that he was driving the Scooter rashly and negligently. According to him, the deceased died due to his own negligence. The deceased was in haste to catch a bus, he started running across the road and in that process he struck with the middle portion of the body of the Scooter. According to him/the petitioners did not suffer any financial loss. The compensation claimed is excessive.

5. The respondent No. 2-Liladhar Thakur, owner of the Scooter, filed separate reply and denied negligence of the driver for causing the [ accident. He more or less took the same stand as has been taken by the driver.

6. The respondent No. 3 Insurance Company filed reply and denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the! Driver it has also been denied that deceased died due to the injury suffered in the accident. The petitioners are not the legal representatives of the deceased and the compensation claimed is highly excessive. The insurer is not liable to pay any compensation even if petitioners are found entitled to any compensation because the driver of the Scooter had no valid driving licence at the time of accident and the Scooter was being plied without registration certificate.

7. The learned Tribunal held that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Scooter at the relevant | time and has awarded an amount of Rs. 10,80,000/- to the petitioners! as compensation on account of death of Prem Singh along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till, the date of payment. The amount of the compensation is to be paid jointly and severally by respondents No. 1 and

2. The petition against respondent No. 3 was dismissed.

8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

9. The learned Counsel for t