This appeal is preferred by the second respondent against the award in M.C.O.P.No.407 of 2005 dated 20.03.2008 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No. IV), Bhavani, Erode District.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as per their original rank.

3. The case of the claimant was that after visiting his sister, he was travelling to his home in Bhavani Road in Bajaj CT 100 Motor Bike bearing Registration No.TN-36-H-9918 with one Mr.Perumal at about 12.30 hours on 25.10.2005. Mr.Perumal was driving the vehicle and the claimant was the pillion rider. To fuel the vehicle, after showing hand signal, when Mr.Perumal slowly turned right towards Karpagam Petrol Bunk, the ambulance van, owned by the second respondent, driven rash and negligently by the first respondent hit the bike in which the claimant was travelling, resulting in the death of Mr.Perumal on the spot and grievous injuries to the claimant. The claimant claimed to be an agriculture labour and after the accident claimed that he has sustained permanent disability and he is unable to attend agricultural coolie works.

4. Before the Claims Tribunal, the second respondent remained exparte.

5. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit claiming that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased Mr.Perumal and one Mr.Murugesan, the ambulance which was driven slowly and carefully was not involved in the accident, because of the accident between the two bikes, there was no room in the road and therefore he had to stop the vehicle by hitting the Indian Oil Corporation Board, the deceased Mr.Perumal and the claimant were drunk and therefore sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. The second respondent reiterating most of the contents of the first respondent regarding the accident and negligence, further pleaded that the claim was liable to be rejected for non-joinder of necessary parties as the Insurance Company of both the two wheelers were not shown as respondents and therefore sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

7. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidences, awarded a sum of Rs.75,838/- with costs and interest @ 7.5 p.a. from the date of claim petition till payment as against the claim of Rs.2.50,000/-. Aggrieved with the same, the second respondent has filed this appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the first respondent. The second respondent has not appeared even before this Court. I have perused the original records of the Claims Tribunal.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to consider that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased Mr.Perumal and Mr. Murugesan and that the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the owners of the two wheelers and their Insurance Companies were not impleaded as parties. The learned counsel further argued that since the claimant was only a pillion rider he was not entitled to any compensation and that the award is exorbitant.

10. In reply, the learned counsel for the first respondent contended that since the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the ambulance van, there is no necessity to implead the owners of the two wheelers and their Insurance Companies. The learned counsel for the first respondent further contended that the finding in the award are based on material evidence and therefore does not warrant any interference.

11. Upon perusal of the award and the documents, it is clear that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent driver in the appeal. After the accident he has abandoned the spot and ran away. No oral or documentary evidence were let in by the appellant to prove any of the contentions raised by them regarding negligence.

12. Regarding the non-joinder of necessary parties, let us first examine as t