By the Court.—This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Insurance Company’) against the award of the M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Aligarh dated 1.8.2011made in M.A.C.P. No. 7 of 2009, Smt. Nirmala Devi and another v. Sandeep Sharma and another.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Facts in short leading to this appeal are as follows :

The deceased Chetan Swaroop, on 5.9.2008 boarded Bus No. U.P. 85E-9372 on the way to Ajmer. Because of rash and negligent driving of bus near Jwaja, Police Station-Jawala, District-Ajmer (Rajsthan), it turned turtle resulting in fatal injuries to Chetan Swaroop. Chetan Swroop was unmarried and was earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month from business. The sister of the deceased and one of his brother Gyan Swaroop filed claim petition under Sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Aligarh, which was registered as M.A.C.P. No. 7 of 2009. It was mentioned that the deceased has left behind him besides the claimants, three other brothers as his legal representatives, whose names were mentioned in para-8 of proforma of the application for compensation namely, Bhagwan Swaroop, Prem Swaroop and Kapil.

Claim petition was contested by the Insurance Company as well as by the owner of the vehicle. After exchange of pleadings between the parties, the Tribunal framed four issues for determination which read as follows:

^^1- D;k fnukWd 1-9-2008 dks le; djhc 7-00 cts izkr% LFkku toktk Fkkuk tokyk tuin vtesj esa tc e`rd psru Lo:i vius vU; ;kf=;ksa ds lkFk JhukFk efUnj jktLFkku cl la[;k ;w0ih0 85 bZ0&9372 ls tk jgk Fkk] rks cl la[;k ;w0ih0 85 bZ0&9372 ds pkyd dh ykijokgh ds dkj.k nq?kZVuk esa e`rd psru Lo:i dh e`R;q gks xbZ\ ;fn gkW rks izHkko\

2- D;k nq?kZVuk ds fnukad] le; ij pkyd ;w0ih0 85 bZ0 9372 ds ikl mDr okgu dks pykus dk oS/k ,oa izHkkoh MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal Fkk\

3- D;k okgu la[;k ;w0ih0 85bZ0 9372 nq?kZVuk dh frfFk ij foi{kh la[;k 02 vksfj;UVy bU'kksjsUl dEiuh ls chfer Fkh\

4- D;k ;kphx.k dksbZ izfrdj dh /kujkf'k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS ;fn gkW rks fdruk rFkk fdl i{k ls\**

4. Issues No. 1, 2 and 3 with regard to rash and negligent driving of the bus, the driver of the vehicle being possessed a valid licence on the date of occurrence and the bus was insured with the Insurance Company, the deceased had boarded the said bus on the date and time mentioned in the claim petition, the bus was being driven by the driver rashly and negligently and because of such rash and negligent driving, the bus met with an accident resulting in the death of the deceased Chetan Swaroop, have all been answered in favour of the claimants. There is hardly any challenge to the findings returned in respect of the aforesaid issues No. 1, 2 and 3 before us.

5. In respect of issue No. 4, the Tribunal has determined the salary of the deceased at Rs. 1,42,909/- per year after deducting 1/3rd of the income for personal expenses, the Tribunal assessed his income at the rate of Rs. 99,264/- per year and after applying the multiplier of 11 having regard to the age of the deceased, (which was 52 years), the compensation has been assessed as Rs. 10,91,904/- to this, it has been added the expenditure towards funeral, loss of companionship etc., the total compenstion has been fixed at Rs. 10,96,404/-.

6. The award of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal is subject to challenge before us on two grounds:

(a) That in the claim petition it was mentioned that there were three other brothers of the deceased, who had not been impleaded either as claimants or as respondents to the claim petition. Therefore, having regard to Section 166 of the Act 1988 and its proviso, the claim petition itself was liable to be dismissed for non-impleadment of necessary parties.

(b) The claimants were sister and brother of the dec