JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. Instant appeal filed under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter ‘Act’) is directed against Award dated 9.11.2016 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Solan, Himachal Pradesh in MACP No. 7AK/2 of 2014 (Regd. No. 101/2015), whereby learned Tribunal below, while allowing the claim petition having been filed by appellants/claimants, (hereinafter, ‘claimants) saddled the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company (hereinafter ‘insurance company’) with liability to pay Rs. 5,11,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization thereof to the claimants, as compensation on account of death of Late Ashish Kumar, son of claimant No. 1 and brother of claimant No. 2.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from record, are that on 16.3.2014, while deceased Ashish Kumar, was going from Subathu to Solan on Motor Cycle bearing registration No. HP-12T-1865, he was unfortunately hit by Tipper bearing registration No. HP-64-4651, being driven by respondent No. 2-Chaman Lal, as a result whereof, he suffered multiple injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries.

3. Claimants, being mother and brother of deceased Ashish Kumar, instituted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, seeking therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 5.00 Crore, alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Claimants stated in the claim petition therein that at the time of death, Ashish Kumar, who was 23 years old, was earning Rs. 50,000 - 60,000 per month from the business of dairy farming and selling 120 ltres milk per day, at the rate of Rs. 30/- per litre. Claimants claimed that the deceased was the sole bread winner of the family and as such, they being legal heir of the deceased, are entitled to compensation.

4. Aforesaid claim put forth by the claimants came to be resisted on behalf of the respondents. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 though nowhere denied the factum of accident but specifically denied allegations of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 2 and claimed that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased. Above respondents also denied that the deceased was earning Rs. 50,000 - 60,000/- per month, by doing dairy business.

5. Respondent No. 3, in its reply, also denied the factum that the deceased was earning Rs. 50,000 - 60,000/- per month.

6. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings adduced on record by respective parties, learned Tribunal below, framed following issues on 28.8.2015:

“1. Whether the deceased Ashish Kumar died on dated 16-03-2024, at about 2.00 P.M. at place near village Sharad (Deothi), on account of the accident of Vehicle No. HP-64-4561, due to the rash and negligent driving by the respondent No. 2, as alleged? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for the grant of compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR-3

4. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR 3

5. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and terms and conditions of Insurance Policy as alleged? OPR-3

6. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR-3

7. Relief.”

7. On the basis of pleadings as well as evidence led on record by respective parties, learned Tribunal below allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and held them entitled to Rs. 5,11,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till its realization.

8. Insurance company accepted the award as no appeal whatsoever, came to be filed in the competent court of law. Similarly, owner and driver of the Vehicle, also did not lay challenge to award as such, award in question has attained finality qua respondents including insurance company.

9. Ap