The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Third respondent/National Insurance Company Limited, against the Award and Decree dated 29.08.2005, in M.C.O.P.No.2099 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court), Dharapuram, awarding a compensation amount of Rs.2,30,250/- with 7.5% interest per annum, from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of compensat

2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court), Dharapuram, in M.C.O.P.No.2099 of 2001, dated 29.08.2005, the appellant/third respondent has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal.

3. The short facts of the case are as follows:

The first petitioner is the widow of the deceased, second petitioner is the minor daughter of the deceased, and the third petitioner is the minor son of the deceased. They have filed the claim petition stating that on 23.12.2000 the first petitioner and her husband deceased Late Palanisamy were travelling on their TVS-50 motor cycle from Kangayam to Vellakovil road, near Pagavathipalayam Junction. At that time, the respondents car bearing registration No.TDU.5200 came from west to east at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the TVS motor cycle. As a result, both the rider and pillion rider of the motor cycle, the first petitioner herein sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, they were taken to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore, wherein they were admitted for treatment. After three days, ie.26.12.2000 the rider of the motorcycle viz., Palanisamy died in the hospital. After conducting the postmortem, the body was handed over to the first petitioner.

4. The first petitioner submitted that the said accident was registered by the Kangayam Police Station in Crime No.538 of 2000 under Sections 337,338 and 304(A) of I.P.C. Based on the first information report, charge sheet was preferred against the driver of the Ambassador Car. The driver pleaded guilty before the Magistrate concerned. The petitioners further submitted that at the time of the said accident, the deceaseds age was 35 years and he was engaged in Power Loom business, and his income was Rs.5,000/- per month. The petitioner further submitted that the deceased was the only earning member of their family and that all the family members depended upon his income. Hence, the first petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-as compensation for the loss incurred by her and her two minor children namely respondents 2 and 3 herein.

5. The third respondent/National Insurance Company has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition on various grounds stating that the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.TDU-5200 had not informed about the accident to this respondent as per the rules of the Insurance Policy. Further he had not co-operated with this respondent to assess the claim and remained absent. In these circumstances the respondent prayed before the Tribunal to contest the case under section 170 of Motor Vehicle Act. The third respondent further submitted that the accident had occurred due to the collision of two vehicles and as such the owner of the moped had to be added as necessary party in this case. Hence this petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and this petition has to be dismissed in lemine. The third respondent further submitted that the claimants have to prove the age, income and occupation of the deceased. The respondent further submitted that at the time of the said accident the rider of the TVS-50 did not have a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. The third respondent further submitted that due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider, the accident had happened and as such the third respondent is not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the claimant.

6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had framed two