AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by the claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Amritsar, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to them on account of the death of Sanjeev Mahajan, who unfortunately died in a motor vehicle accident on 24.12.2005. The deceased was the husband of the first appellant and the father of appellants No. 2 and 3, who were aged 8 and 11 years respectively, at the time of the filing of the claim petition, on 07.06.2006.

2. The facts, taken from the award of the Tribunal, are that Sanjeev Mahajan, aged 35 years, was travelling along with his wife, i.e. appellant-claimant No. 1, and others, in car bearing registration No. PB-02-Z-3637, from Amritsar to Jammu on 24.12.2005. Another couple, Satish Mahajan and Sunita Mahajan, are stated to have been travelling in a separate car behind Sanjeev Mahajan and Reeta Mahajan, as all of them were going to attend the kirya ceremony of Saneev Mahajans' maternal grand-mother.

At about 2:00 p.m. the cars are stated to have reached near a 'Dargah', ahead of Adda Mudhal, when another vehicle, bearing registration No. PB-01-4773, driven by respondent No. 2, allegedly in a rash and negligent manner, came and struck against the car of Saneev Mahajan. All the occupants of the car are stated to have received injuries and were being taken to hospital by Satish Mahajan, but Sanjeev Mahajan is stated to have succumbed to his injuries on the way itself, and consequently, was taken to his residence.

(It needs to be mentioned here that the vehicle bearing registration No. PB-01-4773 has been described through out the Award simply as 'a vehicle', without any particulars of the kind of vehicle that it was).

FIR No. 247, dated 25.12.2005, is also stated to have been lodged at Police Sation Majitha, by Satish Mahajan.

3. The claim petition was thereafter filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 40,00,000/- .

The deceased is stated to have been a businessman, 35 years of age, earning Rs. 35,000/- per month.

4. Notice was issued by the Tribunal, in response to which respondents No. 1 and 2, i.e. the owner and driver of the 'offending vehicle', filed a written statement taking preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the claim petition, the petition being bad for non-joinder, the deceased not being competent to drive the vehicle, denial of the accident itself, as also the age and income of the deceased.

It was further stated that vehicle No. PB-01-4773 was insured with respondent No. 3 (National Insurance Company Limited) at the time of the accident and that respondent No. 2 had a valid driving license to drive the vehicle.

5. The insurance company filed a separate written statement, again taking the same aforesaid preliminary objections and adding that respondent No. 2 did not have a valid driving license at the time of the accident, with the accident itself again denied by the company.

Other than that, pleas of exaggeration of the compensation claim, non-liability of the company, etc. were taken.

6. A replication was also filed by the claimants, upon which the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-

1. Whether Bindu, respondent No. 2 caused the death of Sanjeev Mahajan by driving the motor vehicle bearing registration No. PB-01-4773, negligently? OPA

2. Whether the applicants are only legal representative of the deceased? OPA

3. Whether the application is not maintainable? OPR

4. Whether the application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR.

5. Whether respondent No. 2 was not holding a legal and valid driving license at the time of accident, if so, to what effect? OPR (3)

6. How much amount the applicants are entitled to as compensation and from which of the respondent? OPA.

7. The first appellant-claimant and the aforementioned Satish Mahajan stepp