In this appeal, the claimants-appellants have assailed a part of the award made under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, whereby in stead of interim award of Rs. 50,000/-, learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 25,000/- to the claimants.

2. The appellants had filed claim petition before the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Hazaribag on the death of Manki Sao, caused by motor vehicle accident.

3. The brief fact of this case is that the deceased Manki Sao was traveling as a pillion rider on a TVS Victor motorcycle bearing No.JH02C 8205 along with his son Birendra Kumar Snehi-claimant No.2. As soon as they reached at Singhani More near the bridge on Hazaribag-Bishnugarh Road, the offending Holland tractor coming from opposite direction dashed them and caused severe injuries. Manki Sao succumbed to the injury and died on the spot. It was claimed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Holland tractor.

4. A case was registered with the local Police under Sections 279/337/338/304A of the Indian Penal Code.

5. According to the claimants, the deceased was a retired veterinary compounder aged about 64 years and the entire family members were dependent upon his income. The claimants are entitled to get compensation under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter to be referred as the M.V. Act) on account of the death of Manki Sao.

6. The defendant No.1– owner of the offending vehicle appeared and challenged the maintainability of the claim case against him on the ground that the offending tractor was duly insured with the opposite party no.2 on the relevant date of accident and any liability arising out of the said death is on the said insurer.

7. The insurer-opposite party no.2 had appeared and challenged the maintainability of the claim petition on the ground of non-joinder of the driver and owner of TVS motorcycle which was also involved in the accident. The insurer further claimed that when the offending tractor insured with them and the said TVS motorcycle involved in the accident, it is a case of contributory negligence arising out of collision of two vehicles. The claim case is not maintainable in absence of the driver and owner of the TVS motorcycle.

8. After hearing the parties, learned Tribunal has passed the impugned order and award under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. By the impugned award, learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 25,000/-to the claimants as interim compensation under Section 140 of the M.V. Act.

9. The impugned award has been challenged mainly on the ground that the same is not in accordance with the amended provision of Section 140 (2) of the M.V. Act. Now, the amended provision provides for payment of compensation of a fixed sum of Rs.50,000/-in the case of death of any person, but in the instant case learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 25,000/-, though there is admitted death of the husband of claimant-appellant no.1 and father of claimant-appellant no.2. It has been submitted that the impugned award, being contrary to the mandatory provision of law, is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

10. The appeal has been contested by the insurer-respondent No.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the said respondent submitted that the accident admittedly took place due to collision of two vehicles -the offending Holland tractor as well as the TVS motorcycle. But the owner and driver of TVS motorcycle have not been made party to the claim case. The petition was not maintainable in absence of the said necessary party and was liable to be dismissed. Taking a sympathetic view learned Claim Tribunal, even in absence of the owner and driver of TVS motorcycle has awarded Rs. 25,000/-compensation as share of the insurer-respondent no.2. The appellants have absolutely no ground for assailing the impugned award and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned aw