Judgment H.K. Rathod, J.—Heard learned Advocate Mr. KK Nair on behalf of appellant - Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2. The appellant Insurance Company has challenged award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal FTC No. 2, Ahmedabad (Rural) in MACP No. 1017/1997 Exhibit 35 dated 30/9/2008. The claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 8,97,000/- compensation with 7.5% interest in favour of respondent claimants. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Nair raised number of contentions before this Court. He submitted that claim of claimant was Rs. 5 Lacs as mentioned in claim petition which was drafted by advocate of claimant, even though, without giving any opportunity to insurance company and without amending claim petition, claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 8,97,000/- in favour of respondent claimants. He also raised contention that instead of 1/3 deduction ¼ has been deducted being personal expenses of deceased. He submitted that multiplier 16 is also on higher side looking to age of deceased at the time of accident 31 years and also claims Tribunal has not considered age of parents means claimants. Therefore, claims Tribunal has committed gross error in awarding compensation in favour of respondent claimants. 4. He also raised contention that future prospect income has been considered by claims Tribunal without any cogent evidence on record and without having any proper material on record produced by claimants. He also submitted that income assessed by claims Tribunal is on higher side without any based and there was no material on record which proved income of deceased. He also submitted that just compensation is not based upon misplace sympathy or it can not consider to be profited for claimants. He submitted that after all pecuniary loss caused to dependents must have to be given but not much more amount can be awarded beyond pecuniary loss caused to dependents. He submitted that under Section 168 just compensation can not be worked out by claims Tribunal in arbitrary manner but there must be some reason or rational for awarding compensation in favour of claimants. In short his submission is that claims Tribunal has committed gross error in not considering any of decision of Apex Court and principles laid down by Apex Court. Therefore, award passed by claims Tribunal is required to be set aside. In support of this aforesaid submissions, he relied upon number of decisions, some of has been read before this Court and highlighted which are quoted as under: “1. Therefore, award passed by claims Tribunal is required to be set aside. In support of this aforesaid submissions, he relied upon number of decisions, some of has been read before this Court and highlighted which are quoted as under: “1. In case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bindu and Ors. reported in 2009 (2) Scale 215 , 2. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kalpana and Others reported in 2007 ACJ 825 , 3. in case of Syed Basheer Ahamed & Ors. vs. Mohd. Jameel & Anr. reported in 2009 (1) ST 266, 4. in case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Shanti Devi and Ors. reported in 2009 (2) Scale 168, 5. in case of Managing Director, TNSTC vs. Suguna and Ors. reported in 2009 (2) SCALE 11 , 6. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Meena Variyal reported in 2007 SC 1613, 7. in case of Ramesh Singh & Anr. v.s Satbir Singh & Anr. reported in JT 2008 (2) SC 33, 8. in case of Machindranath Kernath Kasar vs. DS Maylarappa and Ors. reported in 2008 (7) Scale 496 ” 5. He also relied upon decision of Apex Court in case of Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and others reported in 2003 ACJ 12 and submitted that claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to award compensation more then claim by claimants but that is respect to future expenses if required by claimant for medical treatment then it can be given more amount than claim by claimants. 6. I have considered submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Nair and also considered decision of Apex Court relied by learned Advocate Mr. Nair in support of his contention. 7. The accident occurred on 6/5/1997, when deceased Kanubhai Haribhai Patel, husband of claimant going on Tractor belonging to him bearing registration No. GJ-18-H-9593 from Chandrala to Chala at Himmatnagar National Highway No. 8 left side of road with slow speed, at that occasion, offending tanker driven by opponent No. 1 belonging ownership of opponent No. 2 bearing No. GJ-6-U-5135 dashed to back side of tractor and due to that two persons were received injuries, one is deceased Kanubhai Haribhai Patel and another, who was traveling on tractor. The deceased Kanubhai died in accident after sifting to Civil Hospital Gandhinagar. The PM report was prepared. The deceased Kanubhai died in accident after sifting to Civil Hospital Gandhinagar. The PM report was prepared. Vide Exhibit 25 copy of charge sheet, Exhibit 22 copy of panchnama, Exhibit 23 inquest panchnama, Exhibit 24 PM report of Kanubhai and vide Exhibit 18/1 massage report for accident were produced on record. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. Nair not disputed or raised any contention in respect to question of negligence but at the time when this Court has given dictation, he submitted that he has raised contention in appeal memo. Therefore, now he wants to argue this contention also and this Court has permitted and allowed to raise contention in respect to negligence. He submitted that driver was deleted and in absence of driver insurance company can not be held liable relied upon decision of Apex Court in case of Machindranath Kernath Kasar vs. D.S. Mylarappa & Ors. reported in 2008 (7) Scale 496 . According to him, driver is necessary party and in his absence claims Tribunal can not be held liable to insurance company. Except that he has not raised any other contention in respect to negligence. 9. The claims Tribunal has considered charge sheet and panchnama and come to conclusion that tanker was dashed from backside of tractor, which resulted into accident and ultimately, deceased Kanubhai expired in said accident. The claims Tribunal has come to conclusion that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of tanker. The claimant No. 3 was examined vide Exhibit 19, he supported averment made in claim petition. No question was asked to claimants by opponent means advocate of insurance company in cross examination. Therefore, considering submissions made by both learned advocates, claims Tribunal has come to conclusion that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of tanker. 10. The claims Tribunal has considered quantum in respect to income, future prospect, age and multiplier. Before claims Tribunal, relevant record produced by claimants where deceased was doing animal husbandry work, agricultural work, accountant work and also doing transport business. Vide Exhibit 30 and 31 village form of agricultural land 7/12 and 8(A) were produced on record which land belonging to deceased. Vide Exhibit 18/16 certificate was produced on record which shows that deceased was working as part time accountant. Vide Exhibit 30 and 31 village form of agricultural land 7/12 and 8(A) were produced on record which land belonging to deceased. Vide Exhibit 18/16 certificate was produced on record which shows that deceased was working as part time accountant. Vide Exhibit 18/17 to 18/19 whatever agricultural produce received by deceased and after selling into market whatever price received by deceased, those bills were produced on record before claims Tribunal. The tractor in which he was traveling on date of accident is also belongs to deceased means deceased was having ownership of tractor. Considering these evidences on record, according to claimants income of deceased monthly comes to Rs. 5000/-, but considering cross examination by advocate of appellant insurance company, there was no record or account maintained by claimants in respect to income of deceased. The advocate of claimants submitted that considering income of Rs. 5000/- of deceased his prospective income is to be considered but on behalf of advocate of insurance company, it was objected to the extent that there was no evidence of income produced by claimants in respect to deceased. Therefore, notional income of Rs. 1500/- per month is to be considered. 11. The claims Tribunal has considered aforesaid documents and various activities carried out by deceased and considered Rs. 4000/- income per month. Thereafter, prospective income is considered then Rs. 4500/- comes to loss of dependency, after deducting ¼ personal expenses, it comes to Rs. 54000/- yearly and looking to age of 31 years as per school leaving certificate Exhibit 26, 16 multiplier is applied comes to Rs. 9,25,000/-. The claims Tribunal has considered that in claim petition, claimants have made demand for Rs. 5 Lacs being compensation can not consider to be just compensation but considering aforesaid calculation claims Tribunal has come to conclusion that in all Rs. 8,64,000/- comes dependency, for which claimants are entitled. The claimants are also entitled for Rs. 15000/- for loss of expectation of life, Rs. 3000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- for consortium has been awarded, total comes to Rs. 8,97,000/-. 12. Before claims Tribunal owner was held vicarious liable and insurance policy was in existence covering accident period. Therefore, claims Tribunal has held liable both owner and insurance company jointly and severally with 7.5% interest. 15000/- for loss of expectation of life, Rs. 3000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- for consortium has been awarded, total comes to Rs. 8,97,000/-. 12. Before claims Tribunal owner was held vicarious liable and insurance policy was in existence covering accident period. Therefore, claims Tribunal has held liable both owner and insurance company jointly and severally with 7.5% interest. The insurance company has filed reply vide Exhibit 14 raising contention in respect to age and income of deceased and also denying death of deceased Kanubhai in accident. The insurance company has raised contention that driver, owner and insurance company of tractor are not join as party and prayer is made to dismiss claim petition. The issues were framed by claims Tribunal. First issue is about negligence and second issue is about claim of compensation made by claimants whether they entitled how much amount and who is liable for paying compensation. On behalf of insurance company no written submission produced on record but oral submission made by advocate of insurance company. The written submission on behalf of claimants produced vide Exhibit 34. 13. I have gone through entire award, nowhere advocate of insurance company raised contention that driver, who has been deleted is necessary party and in absence of their claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to held liable owner and insurance company of tanker. Before claims Tribunal owner of tanker though served, not remained present and filed appearance and not filed any reply before claims Tribunal. The driver was deleted on the basis of purshis vide Exhibit 15 filed by advocate of claimants. The advocate of insurance company has raised one contention before claims Tribunal that looking to evidence on record, there is no sufficient evidence in respect to income of deceased. Therefore, notional income of Rs. 1500/- is to be considered by claims Tribunal. Except that nowhere contention raised by insurance company before claims Tribunal about multiplier, future prospect income, ¼ deduction and whatever contention raised before this Court relied upon number of decision as referred above, advocate of insurance company has not raised any of contention before claims Tribunal. Such contentions are not found place in award, presumption is that no such contention raised by advocate of insurance company before claims Tribunal. Such contentions are not found place in award, presumption is that no such contention raised by advocate of insurance company before claims Tribunal. The lawyer is know law, it should have to be argued before claims Tribunal in respect to contention and in support of contention relied decision of Apex Court. It is necessary to note that not a single judgment of Apex Court or High Court cited by advocate of insurance company before claims Tribunal. So in absence of such contention naturally claims Tribunal had no occasion to dealt with such contention at the time of passing award because no such contention was canvased before claims Tribunal by advocate of insurance company. It is not true that law will apply only in High Court or legal argument is available to lawyer only in High Court but legal argument and law is equally applicable before claims Tribunal. The lawyer remained silent allowed to claims Tribunal to pass award without any objection and raising contention, then to argue before this Court that there are defects in award and number of judgments of Supreme Court have been violated by claims Tribunal. Therefore, that award must have to be set aside. Such type of approach and practice made by advocate of insurance company is deprecated by this Court. When first opportunity was available to lawyer and insurance company then why they were not raising all contentions which were available in law before claims Tribunal? Even there was no contention raised by advocate of insurance company that claims Tribunal can not pass award beyond claim made by claimants. So according to my opinion, where lapse is lied I am not able to understand and I am not able to find out but one thing is correct that there is no lapse of claims Tribunal while passing award. The lapse is lying somewhere else just to save lapse of lawyer as if that all contentions were raised before claims Tribunal and claims Tribunal has not considered and rejected it which is contrary to decision of Apex Court. This Court has to believe observations and reasoning given by claims Tribunal unless it is found to be contrary to record. The record of claims Tribunal is considered to be conclusive for higher Court and no evidence or contention or documents contrary to record of claims Tribunal, this Court will not accept it and believe it. This Court has to believe observations and reasoning given by claims Tribunal unless it is found to be contrary to record. The record of claims Tribunal is considered to be conclusive for higher Court and no evidence or contention or documents contrary to record of claims Tribunal, this Court will not accept it and believe it. So, learned Advocate Mr. Nair has argued matter on each point but on each point advocate of insurance company remained silent before claims Tribunal, nowhere such contention were raised invited decision of claims Tribunal and now to argue all these point first time before this Court, this Court can not permit to be raised such contention first time before this Court when it was not raised before claims Tribunal. 14. The view taken by Apex Court in number of decisions to control or minimize such type of practice adopted by lawyer and argue first time before Higher Court but that question was not raised before Trial Court, Apex Court has not encouraged such kind of practice and deprecated such type of practice in case of Jagvir Singh & Ors. vs. State (Delhi Admn.) reported in 2007 (5) ST 214 Para 4, in case of Mohm. Akram Ansari vs. Chief Election Officer & Ors., reported in 2008 AIR SCW 416 Para 14, in case of Md. Rafique @ Chachu vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2008 (15) Scale 15 Para 5 and in case of Ex. Constable Ramsvir Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2009 AIR SCW 163 Para 9 and 10, which are quoted as under: This aspect has been considered by Apex Court in case of Jagvir Singh & Ors. vs. State (Delhi Admn.) reported in 2007 (5) Supreme 214 . Relevant discussion made by Apex Court in Para 4 of said decision is reproduced as under: “4. If really there was no concession, the only course open to the appellants was to move the High Court in line with what has been said in State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Anr. ( 1982 (2) SCC 463 ). In Bhvnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. If really there was no concession, the only course open to the appellants was to move the High Court in line with what has been said in State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Anr. ( 1982 (2) SCC 463 ). In Bhvnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (2002 AIR SCW 4939, the view in the said case was reiterated by observing that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the Court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in Court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judge who has made the record. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. It is not open to the appellants to contend before this Court to the contrary.” “Recently, Apex Court has decided similar aspect in case of Mohd. Akram Ansari vs Chief Election Officer & Ors., reported in 2008 AIR SCW 416. Para 14 of said decision is reproduced as under: “14. In this connection we would like to say that there is a presumption in law that a Judge deals with all the points which have been pressed before him. It often happens that in a petition or appeal several points are taken in the memorandum of the petition or appeal, but at the time of arguments only some of these points are pressed. Naturally a Judge will deal only with the points which are pressed before him in the arguments and it will be presumed that the appellant gave up the other points, otherwise he would have dealt with them also. If a point is not mentioned in the judgment of a Court, the presumption is that that point was never pressed before the learned Judge and it was given up. However, that is a rebuttable presumption. If a point is not mentioned in the judgment of a Court, the presumption is that that point was never pressed before the learned Judge and it was given up. However, that is a rebuttable presumption. In case the petitioner contends that he had pressed that point also (which has not been dealt with in the impugned judgment), it is open to him to file an application before the same learned Judge (or Bench) which delivered the impugned judgment, and if he satisfies the Judge (or Bench) that the other points were in fact pressed, but were not dealt with in the impugned judgment, it is open to the concerned Court to pass appropriate orders, including an order of review. However, it is not ordinarily open to the party to file an appeal and seek to argue a point which even if taken in the petition or memorandum filed before the Court below, has not been dealt with in the judgment of the Court below. The party who has this grievance must approach the same Court which passed the judgment, and urge that the other points were pressed but not dealt with.” The Apex Court has delivered judgment on 21st November, 2008 in case of Md. Rafique @ Chachu vs.State of West Bengal reported in 2008 (15) Scale page 15 wherein it was observed by Apex Court that “if a party thinks that the happenings in Court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party while the mater is still fresh in the minds of the Judges to call the attention of the very judges who have made the record. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the mater must necessarily end there. It is not open to the appellant to contend before this Court to the contrary.” Relevant discussion made in Para 5 of said decision is reproduced as under: “5. It would be logical to first deal with the plea relating to absence of concession. It is to be noted that the appellant conceded certain aspects before the High Court. After having done so, t is not open to the appellant to turn around or to take a plea that no concession was given. This is clearly a case of sitting on the fence and it is not to be encouraged. It is to be noted that the appellant conceded certain aspects before the High Court. After having done so, t is not open to the appellant to turn around or to take a plea that no concession was given. This is clearly a case of sitting on the fence and it is not to be encouraged. If really three was no concession, he only course open to the appellant was to move the High Court in line with what has said in State of Maharashtra vs amdas Shrinivas Nayak, 1982 (2) SCC 463 ). In a decision Bhavnagar University vs Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd., ( 2003 (2) SCC 111 ) the view in the said case was reiterated by observing that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the Court are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. if a party thinks that the happenings in Court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party while the mater is still fresh in the minds of the Judges to call the attention of the very judges who have made the record. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the mater must necessarily end there. It is not open to the appellant to contend before this Court to the contrary. The above position was highlighted in Roop Kumar vs. Mohan Thedani (2003) 6 SCC 595 .” Recently, similar aspect has been considered by Apex Court in case of Ex. Constable Ramvir Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2009 AIR SCW 163. Para.9 and 10 of said decision is reproduced as under: “9.The question as to whether he was discriminated against vis-a-vis the aforementioned Kalipada Mandal having not been raised by him before the High Court, we are of the opinion that it is not possible for us to consider the said contention which has been raised for the first time. Mr. Pandey submitted that such a contention has been raised in writ petition. It might have been raised but it does not appear from the impugned judgment that the same was pressed before the High Court. This Court is bound by the Judge’s record. If the High Court, as contended by Mr. Mr. Pandey submitted that such a contention has been raised in writ petition. It might have been raised but it does not appear from the impugned judgment that the same was pressed before the High Court. This Court is bound by the Judge’s record. If the High Court, as contended by Mr. Pandey, despite of raising a contention in that behalf did not deal therewith, the only remedy available to him was to move the High Court drawing its attention thereto. Apart from the fact that the said procedure was not adopted by appellant, even before us, neither the counsel appearing in the High Court nor the appellant, affirmed any affidavit that such a contention, in fact, had been raised before the High Court. It is therefore, not possible for us to accept that the contention as regards the discrimination against the appellant vis a vis the said Kalipada Mandal was raised. 10. In State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak (1982) 2 SCC 467) this Court held: “4. When we drew the attention of the learned Attorney General to the concession made before the High Court, Shri A. K. Sen, who appeared for the State of Maharashtra before the High Court and led the arguments for the respondents there and who appeared for Shri Antulay before us intervened and protested that he never made any such concession and invited us to peruse the written submissions made by him in the High Court. We are afraid that we cannot launch into n inquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not done. Public policy bars us. Judicial decorum restrains us. Matters of judicial record are unquestionable. They are not open to doubt. Judges can not be dragged into the arena. ‘Judgments cannot be treated as mere counters in the game of litigation.’ (Per Lord Atkinson in Somasundaram Chetty vs. Subramanian Chetty.) We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in court. We cannot allow the statement of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the Judges say in their judgment that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject. We cannot allow the statement of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the Judges say in their judgment that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject. The principle is well settled that statements by affidavit or other of the fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the Court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in Court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regards to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error (Per Lord Buckmaster in Madhu Sudan Chowdhri vs. Chandrabhati Chowdhrain.) That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may resile and an appellate Court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had let to gross injustice; but, he may not call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment.” (See also Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 111 and Dhanabhai Khalasi vs. State of Gujarat, (2007) 4 SCC 241 ).” 15. In view of aforesaid observations made by Apex Court having control upon such kind of practice to raise all contention in written statement and in written argument and not to argue before trial Court and only argue in respect to one or two contention, which was pressed into service before trial Court and then to have grievance against trial Court that though contention was raised in written statement and written argument but Trial Court has not considered it. The Apex Court has given good answer to such type of practice adopted by advocate and party and control them to the extent that whatever contention raised and pressed into service, Trial Court is duty bound to dealt with only that much contention not all contention raised in written statement or argument. If party feels that specific contention was raised and not dealt with by Trial Court remedy is to approach trial Court by filing necessary application to same Court when memory of Judge should have to be clear that whether such kind of contention was raised or not by party? Therefore, according to my opinion, contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Nair almost are first time before this Court can not be accepted and entertained, therefore, same are rejected. 16. Apart from that even on merits according to my opinion, claims Tribunal has rightly assessed income and future prospects and rightly applied multiplier, for that claims Tribunal has not committed any error which would require interference by this Court. The reason is that there is material produced on record by claimants showing income of deceased and also throwing some light to have various activities of deceased. (See: Anita Devi & Ors. vs. Satyendra Narain Singh & Ors. reported in 2008 AIR SCW 5199) So looking to record Exhibit 30 and 31 village form 7/12 and 8(A) and having certificate as part-time accountant and also having bills of selling agricultural products, important fact is for assessing income of deceased that he was not poor person or he was not having status as non earning member but he was owner of tractor which belonging to him bearing registration No. GJ-18-H-9593, ownership of tractor suggests sound financial position of deceased otherwise it is very difficult to become owner of tractor by poor person. So these are relevant factors having material on record throwing some light in respect to income of deceased and on that basis claims Tribunal has rightly assessed income of Rs. 4000/- for that claims Tribunal has not committed any error which would require interference by this Court. The deceased was aged about 31 years and doing various type of activities. Therefore, future prospect income of deceased has been rightly considered by claims Tribunal as per decision of Apex Court reported in case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Mrs. The deceased was aged about 31 years and doing various type of activities. Therefore, future prospect income of deceased has been rightly considered by claims Tribunal as per decision of Apex Court reported in case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Others reported in AIR 1994 SC 1631 , in case of Smt. Sarala Dixit and another vs. Balwant Yadav and others reported in AIR 1996 SC 1274 , in case of Ritaben alias Vanitaben WD/o Dipakbhai Hariram and Anr. vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service & Anr. reported in 1998 (2) GLH 670 and in case of Ritaben alias Vanitaben wd/o Dipakbhai Haribhai & Anr. vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service & Anr. reported in 1999 (1) GLR 388 where principles have been decided that if person has been died in accident doing various kind of activities and receiving income and due to all of sudden death, his future has been destroyed amounts to loss of dependency for claimants. Therefore, future prospect income of deceased aged about 31 years has rightly taken into account and formula which has been suggested by Apex Court for working out future prospect income has been rightly applied. Accordingly, figure comes to Rs. 4500/- after deducting ¼ amount being personal expenses. There is no straight jacket formula for deducting personal expenses of deceased it depends upon various factors whether deceased was having special expenses while living life or not, but there was no evidence on record produced by insurance company that deceased was having personal expenses more than ¼. Therefore, claims Tribunal has rightly deducted ¼ being personal expenses and estimated life of 31 years of deceased, 16 multiplier is rightly considered because 31 years aged person died at least expectation of family that he must have been remained live about 16 years for that it can not consider on higher side. Therefore, claims Tribunal has rightly assessed income, applied multiplier and deducted ¼ being personal expenses, for that there is no error committed by claims Tribunal. The driver is not necessary party being tort feasors when owner is join as party. One is driver and another is owner. The owner is insured and vicarious liable for act of accident committed by driver. Therefore, it is not necessary to join driver being necessary party in claim petition. The driver is not necessary party being tort feasors when owner is join as party. One is driver and another is owner. The owner is insured and vicarious liable for act of accident committed by driver. Therefore, it is not necessary to join driver being necessary party in claim petition. Even in absence of driver, claims Tribunal can consider liability owner and insurance company. (See : Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Sabitridevi & Ors. reported in 2008 ACJ 838 ) 17. The relevant discussion made in Paras 12 and 13 in FA No. 487 of 2009 dated 06/02/2009 in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Manek Center Jamnagar vs. Cargo Motors Ltd. is quoted as under: “12. In facts of this case, there is no such controversy between the parties about driver of truck owned by Cargo Motors Ltd. Owner was joined as party who is basically vicariously liable for the act committed by its agent namely driver of truck and owner has to be indemnified by insurance company in accordance with terms and conditions of policy of insurance. Owner himself has remained absent and had not appeared and has not filed written statement and in such circumstances, question is whether if driver is not joined as party, whether claim petition can be considered to be fatal, answer of this Court is that the claim petition would not become fatal and this view has been taken by Kerala High Court in Simon Pathrose vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another reported in 1994 ACJ 840 wherein Kerala High Court was considering question of non impleading of driver and maintainability of claim petition. Claimant had sustained injuries while boarding a bus. Claim petition was dismissed by claims tribunal as not maintainable for want of person against whom negligence is alleged namely driver and it was held by Kerala High Court that non impleading of driver is not fatal to the maintainability of claim petition. Relevant discussion made by Kerala High Court in Paras 7, 8 and 9 is reproduced as under: “7. In the instant appeal filed by the claimant, the main contention urged before me was whether the finding of the Tribunal that the petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of the driver of the bus is correct or not. Relevant discussion made by Kerala High Court in Paras 7, 8 and 9 is reproduced as under: “7. In the instant appeal filed by the claimant, the main contention urged before me was whether the finding of the Tribunal that the petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of the driver of the bus is correct or not. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondents, I am of the view that the question is no longer res integra. In this connection, it has to be noted that both driver and owner are joint tort-feasors. In a motor accident the primary liability is that of the driver and once the driver is found negligent, the owner will be vicariously liable for the negligent, the owner will be vicariously liable for the negligent act of the driver. In other words, the liability of the driver and owner, being joint tort-feasors, is joint and several and any person who sustained any injury in a road traffic accident is entitled to sue either the driver of the vehicle or its owner. It may be true that the person against whom the award is passed and who is made liable to pay the amount as damages is entitled to recover the same from the other joint tort-feasor, but that will not disentitle the claimant injured from suing any one of the joint tort-feasonrs. It has been so held by two Division Bench decisions of this Court reported in United India Fire & General Insurance Company Limited vs. Varghese, 1989 ACJ 472 (Kerala) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ratnamma, 1988 ACJ 435 (Kerala). In the later case, it was observed as follows : “The owner and driver are joint tort-feasors and, therefore, absence of one of them will not be a bar for a suit for compensation. This does not mean that the negligence of the driver need not be proved. Even in the absence of the driver evidence regarding the negligence of the driver can be adduced. Take, for example, a case where the driver also died in the accident without leaving any legal representative. That will not preclude the injured from claiming compensation against the owner or the insurer. T he owner and driver are joint tort-feasors, whose liability is joint and several. Take, for example, a case where the driver also died in the accident without leaving any legal representative. That will not preclude the injured from claiming compensation against the owner or the insurer. T he owner and driver are joint tort-feasors, whose liability is joint and several. Each may be sued alone or jointly and each will be liable for the whole damage.” The principle has been followed in a recent Division Bench decision of this Court in Anuradha Varma vs. State of Kerala, 1994 ACJ 353 (Kerala), wherein it was held that the non-joinder of the driver is not fatal to a claim petition. 8. In the light of the above discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the driver is not a necessary party to the proceedings and absence of the driver will not be a bar for a petition claiming compensation. 9. Having considered the question whether the driver is a necessary party to the proceedings, the next aspect to be considered is the question of negligence, namely, whether the accident as alleged by the claimant was caused by the rash and negligent conduct on the part of the driver or the conductor, as the case may be. It so happens that in many cases the driver himself may die in the accident or he may die during the pendency of the proceedings or he may not appear at all even though he is arrayed as a party respondent before the Tribunal. In all such cases it does not mean that the negligence of the driver need not be proved. The negligence of the driver can be proved even in the absence of the driver on the party array. In the instant case only the owner and the insurer alone are impleaded by the claimant. Even so, it was open for the first respondent owner to take appropriate steps to examine before the Tribunal the driver and conductor of the bus who are none other than his own employees to prove his case as set out in the written statement. But I find that apart from making the averments in the written statement, no independent evidence has been adduced by the first respondent owner to prove these statements. But I find that apart from making the averments in the written statement, no independent evidence has been adduced by the first respondent owner to prove these statements. It is the specific case of the claimant that before he could make a complete entry into the bus, the conductor gave the bell pursuant to which the driver drove the bus in a rash and negligent way thereby throwing the claimant out of the bus through the door. In support of this version, the claimant entered the witness-box as PW 1 and gave evidence. He has categorically sworn that the bus was set in motion by the driver before he could make a complete entry into the bus and as a result thereof he fell down form the bus sustaining injuries. He has given the nature of the injuries sustained by him as also the treatment undergone by him after the accident. Having perused the testimony of the claimant as PW 1, I am inclined to believe that his version is true. Had the vehicle been set in motion after he made a complete entry into the bus, then even assuming that he lost balance because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus at the curve ahead, he would have fallen down inside the us itself rather than being thrown out. The fact that the claimant was thrown outside the bus probabilises his case that the conductor gave the bell and driver drove the bus before he could make a complete entry into the bus. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding, that both the driver and conductor who are the servants of the first respondent owner are primarily liable for the accident as both of them were negligent in their conduct - the conductor in giving the bell before the claimant could enter the bus completely and the driver in driving the bus without proper care and caution. Therefore, I set aside the finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence and find that the driver and conductor were guilty of negligence which caused the accident resulting in injuries to the claimant.” [See : State of Maharashtra vs. Gulabi Sudhu and Others reported in 1995 ACJ 965, Bombay; (2) Radha Kishan Sachdeva and Others vs. Flt. Lt. Therefore, I set aside the finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence and find that the driver and conductor were guilty of negligence which caused the accident resulting in injuries to the claimant.” [See : State of Maharashtra vs. Gulabi Sudhu and Others reported in 1995 ACJ 965, Bombay; (2) Radha Kishan Sachdeva and Others vs. Flt. Lt. L.D. Sharma and Another reported in 1994 ACJ 109 Delhi; (3) Hargo Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mukesh Sharma and Others reported in 1994 ACJ 450 Delhi; (4) Anuradha Varma and Others vs. State of Kerala reported in 1994 ACJ 353 Kerala; (5) Vaddepalli Rajesham vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation reported in 2002 ACJ 1993 AP]. In view of the aforesaid observations made by Kerala High Court and also considering aforesaid decision of Apex Court in case of Meena Variyal (Supra), according to my opinion, there is no decision given by Apex Court tot he effect that in absence of driver, claim petition become fatal to claim of claimant and there is bar against maintainability of claim petition. Apex Court only considered that it would be expected normally that driver is joined as party to claim petition. It is necessary to note one important aspect, no doubt according to learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati, in Exh. 76 written arguments, specific contention was raised by insurance company regarding non joining of driver as a party to claim petition but after perusal of entire award passed by claims tribunal, no where such contention is finding place in award. Even Exh. 72 application as referred to in written argument also does not find place in impugned award. Therefore, looking to award as it is, these two contentions raised by learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati in award. Apart from that, this being legal contention, same has been examined by this Court after considering decision of Apex Court in case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Meena Variyal & Ors. reported in 2007 (5) Scale 269 = AIR 2007 SC page 1609 and decision of Kerala High Court, this Court is of the view that driver is not necessary party because driver and owner both are being joined as tort feasor and if owner is there and there is no any controversy as to who was driving vehicle like Apex Court decision and, therefore, contention of learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati in that regard cannot be accepted and same is therefore rejected.” 18. The claims Tribunal has considered prayer made in claim petition. This being beneficiary legislation must have to be considered object of Act while adjudicating claim petition. The legal obligation upon claims Tribunal as per Section 168 to consider just compensation must have to be awarded to claimants on the basis of evidence on record. If claims Tribunal come to conclusion that particular amount is considered to be just compensation then there is no restriction provided in Act which controlled jurisdiction of claims Tribunal. Therefore, according to my opinion, claims Tribunal on the basis of evidence considered that claimants are entitled particular amount of compensation then claims Tribunal can grant it irrespective of prayer made in claim petition and there is no restricted power and jurisdiction of claims Tribunal under provisions of Motor Vehicle Act read with Section 168 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 19. This Court has taken all contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Nair and decided it though same was not raised by advocate of insurance company before claims Tribunal. Therefore, according to my opinion, this being reasonable, just and proper amount of compensation awarded by claims Tribunal, no interference would require by this Court. The amount of compensation which has been worked out by claims Tribunal can not consider to be arbitrary and unreasonable or it amounts to giving profit or bonanza to claimants, on the contrary person aged about 31 years died in accident for no fault of him but because of driver of tanker having dashed to backside of tractor, that itself is loss to family who was only earning member in family. In such circumstances, Rs. 8,97,000/- awarded while assessing income of Rs. 4000/- if it is invested in Nationalized bank, return being interest comes to equally to income of deceased not more than that and that is real purpose for granting compensation to claimants that ultimately some amount is to be given to claimants so claimants can received interest upon said amount almost equally to monthly income of deceased. In this case net result of awarding compensation Rs. 8,97,000/- comes to monthly return by way of interest almost nearby monthly income of deceased. (See: in case of National Insurance Co. In this case net result of awarding compensation Rs. 8,97,000/- comes to monthly return by way of interest almost nearby monthly income of deceased. (See: in case of National Insurance Co. vs. Sumitraben Kanubhai Chauhan reported in 2006 11 GHJ 552 , in case of Managing Director TNSTC Ltd. vs K. I. Bindu & Ors. reported in 2005 (8) Scale 173 ) Therefore, in all angle, according to my opinion, contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Nair can not be accepted and view taken by claims Tribunal is perfectly justified evidence on record and no error committed by claims Tribunal which would require interference by this Court. 20. Hence, there is no substance in appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Today, first appeal is dismissed by this Court no order is required to be passed in civil application. Therefore, civil application is also disposed of. If any amount is deposited by insurance company in Registry of this Court, let that may be transmitted immediately to concern claims Tribunal.