By the Court.—As both the aforesaid appeals arise out of an accident occurred on 17.8.2004, they are taken up together for common orders.

2. At the outset, it is relevant to mention here that Mohd. Yunus and Ajmat Ali, who are the appellants in FAFO No. 808 of 2010 have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by an Award dated 4.11.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 6 of 2009, whereby the Tribunal has directed the respondents to pay Rs. 1,82,000/- alongwith interest. According to the appellant, deceased was a carpenter and was a skilled labour, who was earning not less than Rs. 3,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal did not find the income reliable as claimed by the claimants. Accordingly, the Tribunal assessed the income as Rs. 15,000/- per annum on the basis of second schedule.

3. It is relevant to point out here that the Tribunal has directed that 50% of the compensation amount shall be paid jointly by opposite party Nos. 1 and 4, whereas opposite party No. 2 shall pay the remaining 50% amount of compensation. The Tribunal further directed that it will be open for the Oriental Insurance Company (opposite party No. 4) to recover the amount from the opposite party No. 1 (Rais).

4. Rais, who is respondent No. 1 in FAFO No. 808 of 2010, has filed separate appeal bearing FAFO No. 507 of 2010 inter alia on the ground that the Tribunal committed an error in granting liberty to the insurance company for recovering the awarded amount from the appellant/owner of the vehicle. It may be pointed out that Rais is the owner of Mini Truck No. UP-40-5321 which had collided with Jeep No. UP-40/8485.

5. Heard Mr. Rajendra Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the appellant in FAFO No. 808 of 2010 and Mr. U.P.S. Kushwaha, learned Counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others.

6. A perusal of the impugned Award shows that the Tribunal while deciding the claim has framed in all eight issues and issue Nos. 2 and 3 are to the effect that whether the vehicles bearing No. UP-40-8485 (Jeep) and UP-40-5321 (Mini-Truck) were insured with the insurance company and whether the drivers of both the vehicles were having valid driving licenses. On the basis of the documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Liyaqat Ali, who was the driver of LMV vehicle was having a valid driving license and the same was effective on the date of incident in respect of LMV vehicle only, but he was driving Truck (HMV) for which he was not having valid driving license. As far as the driver of Jeep is concerned, neither any one appeared nor any documentary evidence was produced before the Tribunal as such the Tribunal came to the conclusion that both the drivers were not having valid driving licenses on the date of incident. Issue No. 5 framed by the Tribunal was that whether Jeep No. UP-40/8485 was sold by its driver on 9.6.2004 to Smt. Naznin Begum, W/o Aziz and whether at the time of accident the vehicle was in possession of Smt. Naznin Begum and it was transferred in her name by the A.R.T.O. on 21.8.2004. The Tribunal after examining the record has held that the vehicle in question was in possession and in the name of Smt.Naznin Begum, W/o Abdul Aziz at the time of accident.

7. Mr.U.P.S Kushwaha, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the claim petition has been filed by the brother of deceased, who are not dependent on the income of deceased. Further, the deceased was unmarried. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation to the claimants, who are not dependents, but brothers of the deceased. To substantiate the aforesaid argument, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has relied upon Smt. Manjuri Bera v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another, [2007(10) SCC 643].

8. The aforesaid argument of the learned Counsel for the Insurance company is to be examined in the light of various provisions contained in Motor Vehicles Act. Section 163-A of the Mo