JUDGMENT : B.D. Agrawal, J.—This appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Allahabad dated October 4, 1977. 2. The accident in question occurred on July 25, 1976 round 4 30 a.m. Hira Lal Pandey was lying near some sand in which he dealt when Truck No. UTB 9576 belonging to respondent No. 6 over-ran him. According to the case put forward by the claimants, as a result Hira Lal Pandey sustained grievous injuries leading to his death within almost 24 hours. The truck. belonged to respondent No. 6, as mentioned above. The deceased was about 32 years of age and the claim, laid was for a sum of Rs. 48,000/- besides interest at the rate of 6% per annum. For the respondent No. 6 it was contended that the accident did not occur on account of rashness or negligence on the part of the driver, as claimed by the claimants. Insurance Company put in separate written statement also refuting the claim for compensation put forward by the claimants. 3. The Tribunal came to the finding that the accident took place directly due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the truck in question. The Tribunal also found that, considering that the deceased was about 32 years in age and was able to make about Rs. 800/-per month out of which he contributed nearly Rs. 400/- per month upon the maintenance of the wife and the children, the compensation justified would be in the tune of Rs. 48,000/-. The award has been given accordingly for a sum of Rs. 48,000/- in favour of the claimant besides interest at the rate of 4% per annum. Aggrieved against this award, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. has preferred this appeal. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel. 5. Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 specifies the grounds available to the insurance companies for challenge against the claims such as the present preferred u/s 110-A of the Act. The sole contention raised for the appellant before me is that in the impugned award the compensation allowed is excessive and that the deceased was a casual labourer and not a driver or a contractor earning Rs. 800/- per month or the like as offered by the claimants. The sole contention raised for the appellant before me is that in the impugned award the compensation allowed is excessive and that the deceased was a casual labourer and not a driver or a contractor earning Rs. 800/- per month or the like as offered by the claimants. Apart from the fact that the Tribunal has recorded a finding to the contrary, on appraisal of evidence and further that there was no evidence in rebuttal from the side of the truck owner or from the side of the driver or the Insurance Company either for that matter, it does not appear that this ground of defence or for appeal is open to the appellant in the present case. The question whether the accident resulted due to rash or negligent driving of the truck and if so the quantum of compensation to which the claimant is entitled is something between the claimant on the one hand and the truck owner/driver on the other. It is not open under the law to the Insurance Company to agitate against the same, and in view thereof this appeal in which the sole ground taken rests upon the quantum of compensation awarded may not be said to lie and, in any case, it is devoid of merit. 6. The appeal is consequently dismissed. Costs on parties. 7. Cross objection has also been filed by the claimant seeking award of compensatory costs besides pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the claimant in my opinion, is not eligible to have the decree for compensatory costs in addition to the amount awarded. 8. The appeal and the cross-objections are dismissed accordingly.