JUDGMENT 1. - National Insurance Company Ltd. (in short insurance company) has filed this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the common award dated 31.1.2012 passed by Judge, Motor Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Additional District Judge Fast Track No.6) Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur Ajmer ( in short MACT) in Claim Case No.244/2009 (1316/2008) whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants was partly allowed and they were awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 1,55,000/-. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned award and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.2.2008 Anil Kumar, who was driving vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 14 CB 7930 died in the road accident when he was going from Jaipur to attend marriage ceremony of his brother Rajesh Kumar, when the said vehicle overturned near Fatehpur, resulting his death along with two others namely Sher Singh and Gulab Singh and resulting in injuries to Vinod Kumar and Satish Kumar. It was alleged that the said accident took place when a Neel Gaay came in front of the said vehicle all of sudden. FIR in regard to said accident was lodged at Police Station Kotwali Fatehpur which was registered as FIR No. 23/2008. The vehicle which was being driven by the deceased was owned by his father and was insured with appellant insurance company. The MACT in relation to the claim petition of the claimants awarded a sum of Rs. 1,55,000 in the common award dated 31.1.2012. 4. Mr. Man Singh Chundawat, counsel appearing for the insurance company has placed reliance on New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi and others, (2009) 2 SCC 417 : AIR 2009 SC 1788 , Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Jhuma Saha and others, (2007) 9 SCC 263 : AIR 2007 SC 1054 , and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sinitha and others, ACJ 2012 Vol. 1 page 1 : AIR 2012 SC 797 : 2012 AAC 380 . stated that the award of the MACT is absolutely illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the facts of the case and well established legal position and as such is liable to be quashed and set aside. Ltd. v. Sinitha and others, ACJ 2012 Vol. 1 page 1 : AIR 2012 SC 797 : 2012 AAC 380 . stated that the award of the MACT is absolutely illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the facts of the case and well established legal position and as such is liable to be quashed and set aside. It was further argued that the deceased was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged accident, was son of the insured himself and was driving the said vehicle having stepped into the shoe of the owner and as such in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ningamma and another v. United India Insurance Company AIR 2009 SC 3056 , the claim petition filed by the claimants was not maintainable as the deceased did not fall within the purview of Third Party and as such there was no justification before the MACT to burden the insurance company with liability. The MACT committed gross error in considering income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month in absence of reliable and trustworthy documentary evidence on record. The learned counsel further argued that none of the claimants were dependent upon the deceased as mother of deceased could not be deemed to be dependent on deceased when her husband is alive and rest of the claimants who are major brother of the deceased can also not be deemed to be dependent upon the deceased and hence compensation awarded being excessive deserves to be reduced. The interest awarded by the MACT at a higher rate is not justified and it can be awarded only from the date of passing the judgment and not from the date of filing of the claim petition. 5. Mr. Sandeep Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the claimants placing reliance on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sinitha and others ACJ 2012 Vol.1 page l : AIR 2012 SC 797 : 2012 AAC 380 on which reliance was also placed by the insurance company, has argued that the MACT has considered the evidence and the documents produced by the claimants and the award cannot be said to be per verse. The compensation was rightly awarded to the claimants. The MACT assessed the dependency Rs. 2,70,000/- but only taken into consideration half of it Rs. 1,35,000/- deducting the share of the father of the deceased. The compensation was rightly awarded to the claimants. The MACT assessed the dependency Rs. 2,70,000/- but only taken into consideration half of it Rs. 1,35,000/- deducting the share of the father of the deceased. Thus the award cannot be said set aside as per the rulings cited by the counsel for the insurance company. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the insurance company and the claimant-respondents. The MACT passed the award dated 31.1.2012 after hearing the counsel for all the parties including the appellant. The MACT in the award dated 31.1.2012 in relation to issues 1 and 2 held as under : " dsoy ek= ;g dg nsus ls fd og foi{kh la[;k 1 dk iq= gS] blfy;s ;kfpdk izLrqr ugha dj ldrk] U;k;ksfpr ugha gS ;g eksVj vf/kfu;e yksd dY;k.kdkjh vf/kfu;e gS vkSj ,d jftLVMZ okgu dk Lokeh vius iq= ls okgu dks pyok ldrk gS] bl laHkkouk ls bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk] ,slh fLFkfr esa og mlds fu;kstu esa okgu Lo;a gks vkSj og okgu pkyd ds :i esa dk;Z djrk gS] bl rF; dh Hkh iqf"V gksrh gS fd mlds }kjk okgu pyk;k tk jgk gS vkSj vfuy dqekj dk Mh0,y0 Hkh izLrqr fd;k x;k gS vkSj og Lo;a oDr nq?kZVuk vius firk ds fu;kstu esa okgu pyk jgk Fkk] ;g rF; lkfcr gksrk gS D;ksafd izdj.k esa lM+d nq?kZVuk esa gksus okys {kfr ds fy;s e`rd ds fgrkFkZ ;g dkuwu cuk;k x;k gSA vr% rudh la[;k 1 o 2 mijksDr fo'ys"k.k ds vuqlkj foi{kh dh fdlh izdkj dh bl fcUnq ij dksbZ lk{; ugha gksus ds dkj.k ekSf[kd dFku chek dEiuh dk Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha ik;k tkrk rFkk izdj.k esa izLrqr nLrkosth lk{; izn'kZ 3 iapk;rukek yk'k] e`rd dh iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ izn'kZ 6] QnZ tIrh okgu izn'kZ 7] uD'kk ekSdk izn'kZ 8] ,e0Vh0vks0 fjiksVZ izn'kZ 9] jftLV~s'ku izek.k i0 rFkk izn'kZ 10 us'kuy bU';ksjsal dEiuh dk izek.k i= rFkk izdj.k esa izLrqr vfuy dqekj dk Mh0,y0 vkSj izn'kZ 17 lrh'k dqekj dk c;ku bl ckr dks lkfcr djrk gS fd foi{kh la[;k 1 ds fu;kstu esa e`rd vfuy mDr okgu pyk jgk Fkk rFkk mDr okgu ds ifjpkyu ds nkSjku uhyxk; ds vpkud lkeus vk tkus ds dkj.k mDr nq?kZVuk ?kfVr gqbZ ;g rF; iw.kZr;k lkfcr ik;k tkrk gSA " 7. In relation to issue No.3 the MACT observed as under : " D;ksafd orZeku izdj.k esa dkj pkyd vfuy dqekj ds ikl oS/k ykbZlsUl gS og vius firk ds fu;kstu esa okgu pyk jgk gS] og ewy Lokeh ugha Fkk] blfy;s og r`rh; i{kdkj dh Js.kh esa gh vk,xk] u dh vU; n'kk esaA mls dsoy ek= ifjokj dk lnL; gksus ds dkj.k vkSj e`rd vfuy foi{kh la[;k 1 dk iq= gksus ds dkj.k mDr fof/kd vf/kdkj ls oafpr ugha fd;k tk ldrk] tc rd fd lqlaxr lk{; vU; izdkj ls u gksA ,slh fLFkfr esa chek dEiuh }kjk ftu U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa dks vk/kkfjr fd;k x;k gS] muds laca/k esa lqLi"V O;k[;k mijksDr fo'ys"k.k esa dh tk pqdh gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa /kkjk 163 , ds vUrxZr ;g ;kfpdk iks"k.kh; ugha gS] ;g Hkh /kkjk 163 , ds lajpukRed lw= ds vk/kkj ij ugha ekuk tk ldrk] bldk Li"Vhdj.k /kkjk 163 , esa lqLi"V rjhds ij fn;k x;k gSA bl izdkj ls ;g rudh chek dEiuh ds fo:) o vkosndx.k ds i{k esa fofuf'pr dh tkrh gSA " 8. In relation to issue No.4 the MACT computed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 1500 and applied the multiplier of 15 and computed his income to be Rs. 2,70,000/- out of which share of father was deducted and Rs. 1,35,000/- was awarded to Supyar Devi. Brother Rajesh and Sunil were awarded Rs. 5,000/- each for love and affection. In total Rs. 1,55,000 were awarded including cremation amount. The arguments raised by the insurance company cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the MACT. The findings recorded by the MACT cannot be said to be perverse. The award passed by the MACT is just and proper and no interference is called for in the award passed by the MACT. The appeal filed by the insurance company being devoid of merit stands rejected. 10. With the above observations the misc. appeal stands rejected. The stay applications also stands rejected. The compensation may be disbursed to the claimants in accordance with the award. The record of the case be sent immediately to the MACT.Appeal dismissed. *******