Hon’ble Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J.—This appeal under Section 173 Motor Vehicle Act (For short ‘Act’) has been filed by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd against the award passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 224 of 2011 (Smt. Gyanwati and others v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others) on 2nd February, 2012 by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Barabanki, Court No. 35 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), wherein the petitioner-respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the parents of deceased Sunit Kumar Verma, were awarded compensation of Rs. 5,16,500/- with pendente lite and future simple interest @ 9 % per annum.

2. The factual matrix in short for deciding this appeal is that a petition under Section 163(A) Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the parents of Sunit Kumar Verma, aged about 20 years. Sunit Kumar Verma, being pillion rider on a motor-cycle bearing registration No. UP-41/H- 2825 driven by his brother Arjun Singh was going to Safdarganj for taking medicine. When motor-cycle reached near Hotel Rambabu in village Indhaulia on 13th April, 2011 at about 12.00 noon, bus of respondent No. 3, having registration No. UP-41/T-4562 under control of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short UPSRTC) coming from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner hit the motor-cycle. In this accident both motor-cyclist and pillion rider received injuries. However, Sunit Kumar Verma succumbed to injuries on the same day during his treatment.

3. In petition filed under Section 163(A) of the Act a sum of Rs. 3,71,000/- has been claimed as compensation with interest at the rate of 12 %. The deceased was said to be a labourer and also cultivating land on contract basis (Batai). He earns about Rs. 4,000/- per month.

4. The information of this accident was lodged on the same day by motorcyclist Arjun Singh in police station Jaidpur, District Barabanki. The police after investigation prepared the site plane, inquest report, getting the post-mortem of the deceased submitted charge sheet against the driver of the bus, namely, Vinod Kumar.

5. The claim petition was contested by Appellant Insurance Company by filing his written statement, paper No. (Kha-33/1) and denied the allegations of petition and pleaded therein that petitioner was not entitle to any compensation. He also pleaded that accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist and in alternative it has been pleaded that accident was occurred due to contributory negligence of the driver of the bus and motorcyclist. It was further pleaded that the bus was being driven against the terms of the policy and the claimants respondents are not entitled to any compensation from the Appellant Insurance Company.

6. The owner of the bus Srikant Gupta, respondent No. 3 also filed his written statement (Kha-11/1) and pleaded therein that the bus was insured with the Appellant Insurance Company under cover note No. 110000021177 from 5.5.2010 to 4.5.2011. It was also pleaded that bus was being driven in accordance with the terms of the policy. The bus was being plied by UPSRTC under an agreement. Driver Vinod Kumar Shukla was having a valid driving license No. 654335 issued by Licensing Authority, Barabanki on 13.1.2011, which was valid till 12.1. 2014. The allegations made in the petition were denied and stated that petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Respondent No. 4 UPSRTC, also contested the claim by filing written statement paper No. Kha-29/1, and denied the allegation made in the petition and stated that petitioner is not entitle to any compensation. He further stated that the petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner, insurance company and the driver of motor-cycle No. UP-41/H- 2825, because the accident is occurred due to sole negligence of the motorcyclist, who was coming in rash and negligent manner and hit the bus.

8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties certain issues were fr