JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company on the ground that learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) has exceeded its jurisdiction while deciding the claim petition. According to the appellant, the claim petition was itself not tenable on the ground that the income of the respondent no.1 was more that Rs.40,000/-. Secondly, the Tribunal has wrongly recorded the factual position in the matter and thirdly, the respondent no.1 being one of the tortfeasor in the accident was not entitled to file the application for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. To understand the controversy involved in the matter, certain facts are necessary to be considered in the present appeal.

4. The respondent no.1 is the original claimant, filed the claim petition under Section 163A of the MV Act for grant of compensation towards the injury caused to him in the motor accident.

5. It is the case of the respondent no.1, that on 01.01.2012 when he was going to Pimpalgaon from his house, by motorcycle bearing registration No. MH-29-AC-2140 at about 5.00 p.m., one auto bearing registration no.MH-29-4540 driven by respondent no.2 came from

opposi