1. The claimants, who are the mother, father and brother of the deceased have filed the present miscellaneous first appeal against the judgment and award dated 21.11.2019 made in MVC No. 1618 of 2018 on the file of the XIV Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH - 10), insofar as deducting Rs. 17,87,336 out of the compensation awarded, on the ground that the deceased has not contributed any premium to the insurance company, personally.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

3. Facts of the case:
It is the case of the claimants that on 10.2.2018, at about 10.30 a.m., deceased Sagar N. was riding his Honda Activa motor cycle bearing No. KA 01 - HU 6345 from Bengaluru towards Kanakapura, slowly and cautiously and when he reached near Vani Talkies, opposite to Yallamma Dasappa Kalyana Mantapa, Kanakapura Town, Kanakapura, at that time, the driver of the tipper lorry bearing registration No. KA 42 - A 6449 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased's motor cycle. As a result, the deceased fell down on the road along with motor cycle and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, dead body was shifted to Kanakapura Government Hospital for post - mortem and after the post - mortem, the claimants received the dead body and performed the funeral and obsequies ceremony. The deceased Sagar N. was aged about 26 years, hale and hearty at the time of accident and was working as a Process Associate and drawing salary of Rs. 27,000 per month. The claimants are the legal heirs and dependants of the deceased and due to the unexpected death, they lost the sole bread earner. The respondent No. 1 is the owner and respondent No. 2 is the insurer of the offending lorry. Therefore, the claimants filed claim petition under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs. 60,00,000.

4. Objections filed by respondent No. 1 - owner of the lorry:
The respondent No. 1 filed objections and denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant and fanciful. The accident in question has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry, on the other hand, due to negligent act of deceased Sagar. The lorry was insured with respondent No. 2 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident and, therefore, sought to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Objections filed by respondent No. 2 - insurance company:
The respondent No. 2 - insurance company contended that the claim petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be rejected in limine. The respondent No. 2 denied the issuance of the policy to the offending vehicle and contended that the liability, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. It is further contended that the owner and the concerned police have not complied the mandatory provision of S.134 (c) and 158 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and also he had no permit to ply the vehicle as on the date of accident. Hence, the driver of the offending vehicle has violated the policy conditions. The respondent No. 2 also denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and relationship of the claimants with the deceased and their dependency on the income of the deceased. It was contended that deceased was riding the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner. The compensation claimed is highly exorbitant and without any basis and, therefore, sought to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Issues framed by the Tribunal:
Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues.
“(i) Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal heirs of deceased Sagar N.?
(ii) Whether the petition