JUDGMENT :- These two appeals art directed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Meerut decreeing the claimant-respondents' claim to a sum of Rs. 25,000/-.

2. One Lachman Singh was returning on his cart on Baghpat Delhi road on 17-10-68. Truck No. UPS. 9031 came from behind and smashed the buffalo-cart with the result that Lachman Singh and the buffalo died on the spot and the cart was badly damaged. The truck belonged to Babu Singh under a hire-purchase agreement from Nice Financier and Engineering (Private) Ltd., Delhi and was insured with Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. Jai Bhagwan was the driver of this truck, Sri Babu Singh was also travelling in the same truck. The truck was going from Saharanpur to Delhi. After notice to Sri Babu Singh the claimants opposite parties claimed compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act amounting to Rs. 27,000/-.

3. The claim was contested by the Jupiter General Insurance Co. and Sri Babu Singh, The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal decreed the claim and gave its award by its order dated 9-2-71. Under the award the claim of the claimant was decreed to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- against the Jupiter General Insurance Co. and the remaining amount of Rs. 5,000/- was decreed against Sri Babu Singh. These two F.A.P.Os. have been filed against the aforesaid award of the Tribunal F.A.F.O. No. 179 of 1971 Is by Jupiter General Insurance Co. and F.A.F.O. No. 118 of 1971 is by Babu Singh.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Jupiter General Insurance Co. has contended that :-

(1) The claim was vague and was not properly verified. He has also stated that in the absence of a claimant coming in the witness box the claim could not be deemed to have been filed by the claimants.

(2) Burden of proof of negligence by on the claimant and no allegation of negligence was made in the claim.

(3) The award is bad without any issue on proof of negligence.

(4) The driver and the financier i.e. Nice Finance Co. were necessary parties and the claim, therefore, is bad on that account.

(5) The compensation award is excessive and has not been accorded in accordance with the principles of law.

5. On behalf of Sri Babu Singh, in addition to points raised by the Jupiter General Insurance Co., it has further been stated that Babu Singh was not liable to any extent when the vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. He has further stated that the notice by some of the heirs being for Rupees 21,700/- only the Tribunal was not competent to decree the claim for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. Form of application for payment of compensation made under Section 110-A is prescribed under the rules. After the particular required to be filled is the claimant has to solemnly declare that the particulars given are true and correct to the best of his knowledge. Thereafter he has to put hit signature or thumb impression. Then is no form of verification as presented by the Civil Procedure Code. The claim presented by the claimants is in accordance with the form prescribed under the Act and the rules. The claim, therefore, could not be thrown out on the ground that the claim was vague. After the filing of the claim a reply has to be filed by the contesting parties and the appellants did file their replies. They in their written reply have not mentioned what particular portion of the claim was vague. It has been argued here that claim even though purports to bear the thumb impression of the claimants and the signature of the Advocate, the signatures and thumb impressions of the claimants could not be presumed. The claimants had given notice of their claim through the Advocate and at no point of time the appellants denied that the claim did not bear the thumb impression of the claimants. On the other hand the appellants contested the quantum of damages and merely denied that the claimants were the legal represent