JUDGMENT :

(J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This is a claimants' appeal arising out of a judgment and award of Mr. S.C. Bose, District Judge of Allahabad, sitting as the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, dated 6th January, 2003 passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.411 of 1999. The claimants seek enhancement of the compensation awarded.

2. Insanul Haq, the deceased was travelling on board Jeep No. UP-70N-7479 on 13.04.1999. At about 7:30 p.m., near a certain Village Gansiari within the local limits of Police Station Mau Aima, District Allahabad (now Prayagraj), a Bus bearing registration No. UGH-471, owned by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the UPSRTC'), that was proceeding from Allahabad to Ayodhya, hit the Jeep. In consequence of the accident, Insanul Haq sustained injuries, leading to his death. The Jeep aforesaid, whereon Insanul Haq was travelling, was owned by one Alok Pandey and insured by the Oriental Insurance Company, Allahabad. The claimants are seven in number, to wit, Hamidunnisa (wife) aged about 40 years, Tito (son) aged about 16 years, Gulzar (son) aged about 15 years, Resham (daughter) aged about 12 years, Sarwar (son) aged about 9 years, Gulsher (son) aged about 5 years and Kulsum (son) aged about 7 years.

3. It is the claimants' case that the deceased was a power loom mechanic and himself the owner of a power loom. His income was Rs.5000/-per month. All the claimants were dependent upon the deceased's income. The claimants have, therefore, demanded a compensation in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. A separate written statement each was filed on behalf of the UPSRTC, the owner of the ill-fated Jeep, Alok Pandey and the Oriental Insurance Company, who are the Insurers of the Jeep. The owner of the Jeep and the Insurers shall hereinafter referred to as 'the owner' and 'the Insurers', respectively.

5. The UPSRTC broadly took a stand that the accident happened on account of the Jeep driver's negligence, whereas the owner took a stand that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the Bus driver. It was also urged that on the date of accident, the ill-fated Jeep was validly insured with the Insurers. The Insurers did a wholesome and inconsistent denial of everything that was urged to hold them liable. They denied insuring the ill-fated Jeep, the accident between the UPSRTC Bus and the ill-fated Jeep, and also the fact that the driver held a valid driving licence. In substance, the Insurers denied their liability to indemnify the owner of the Jeep regarding any liability, that may be apportioned to him.

6. On the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed (translated into English from Hindi):

“1. Whether on 13.04.1999, at about 7:30 in the evening hours, the alleged accident happened on account of rash and negligent driving of Jeep No. UP-70N-7479?

2. Whether the alleged accident, involving Jeep No. UP-70N-7479 and Bus No. UGH-471, happened due to the contributory negligence of both the vehicles? If yes, which vehicle is at fault and to what extent?

3. Whether Jeep No. UP-70N-7479 is owned by Alok Pandey and insured with the Oriental Insurance Company?

4. Whether on the date of the accident, the driver had a valid driving licence?

5. Whether Jeep No. UP-70N-7479 was being operated in accordance with law, rules and its registration?

6. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If yes, how much and from which of the parties?

7. To what relief are the claimants entitled?”

7. The Tribunal dealt with Issues Nos. 1 and 2 together and held that both the Bus and the ill-fated Jeep had equal contributory negligence in the accident. Issue No.3 was answered in favour of the owner and the claimants holding that the ill-fated Jeep was owned by the owner and validly insured with the Insurers. This issue was answered in this manner by the Tribunal on the Insurers' admiss