Judgment Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Admit. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 4. Aggrieved by the award to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-to the present respondent Nos.1 to 3 original claimants, the appellant-original respondent No.2 i.e. Insurance Company has filed present appeal. 5. The deceased Sushilabai W/o Asaramji Jaiswal, a old lady died in the motor vehicular accident that had occurred on 20.10.2007 at about 6.00 p.m. in front of Sidheshwar Temple, in the Aurangabad City. Her sister-in-law Heerabai Jaiswal filed the complaint on the next day. In the complaint, she has recited that while the deceased, along with complainant was proceeding on the road, a motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-23/9807 driven by one Mohsin Qureshi S/o Abdul Qureshi, resident of Baijipura, Aurangabad, had dashed the lady, resulting into her death. She has specifically recited that since the motorcycle driver is resident of Baijipura area, Aurangabad, she was well acquainted with him. Thereafter, her supplementary statement (Exhibit-31) came to be recoded. The certified copy of the said statement was placed on the record of the Tribunal. The said supplementary statement was recorded on 22.10.2007, wherein complainant has corrected the registration number of the motorcycle as MH-20-AN-9765, though she confirmed the driver of the motorcycle to be the same. 6. In the claim petition presented by respondent Nos.1 to 3 original claimants, they arrayed motorcycle owner Mohmad Aref as respondent No.1 and present appellant i.e. Insurance company as respondent No.2. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Member came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle driver, and the motorcycle that was involved in the accident was MH20/AN-9765. During the pendency of the proceeding the appellant Insurance Company prayed for issuing summons to the motorcycle driver, the same was also issued, however, no report was received and ultimately the learned Member proceeded with the matter, and passed the impugned Judgment and Award. 7. On the material before the leaned Member, he came to the conclusion that motorcycle bearing No.MH20/AN-9765 was involved in the accident, driven by said Mohsin Qureshi S/o Abdul Qureshi. He further found that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle, accident had occurred. 7. On the material before the leaned Member, he came to the conclusion that motorcycle bearing No.MH20/AN-9765 was involved in the accident, driven by said Mohsin Qureshi S/o Abdul Qureshi. He further found that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle, accident had occurred. As the present appellant was the insurer of the motorcycle it was directed to pay jointly and severally the compensation. 8. Mr. V.R. Mundada, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer vehemently submitted that the driver was necessary party at least in the present set of facts. He submits that at least driver can be held as a proper party. He further submits that the appellant himself though respondent tried to bring the driver in the witness box, but failed in the same. In the circumstances, he submitted that the award of the learned Member deserves to be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the learned Tribunal, by adding the driver as party respondent. In the alternative Mr. Mundada assailed the computation of compensation at Rs. 1,00,000/-. 9. Mr. Tambe, leaned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 i.e. original claimants submits that driver was not at all necessary or proper party. He further submits that considering the material on record, the learned Member has rightly come to the conclusion that the motorcycle MH20/AN-9765 was involved in the accident as named in the FIR. There is no reason to interfere in the findings of the learned Member on the record. 10. On the basis of this material, following points arise for my determination: (i) Whether driver of the motorcycle was necessary party? (ii) Whether compensation granted by the learned Member is excessive? My finding to the said points are in the negative and appeal is dismissed without any orders as to costs for the reasons to follow. REASONS 11. As regards the issue of driver being necessary party, Mr. Mundada, learned counsel relied upon the judgments in the case of Machindranath Kernath Kasar Vs. D.S. Mylarappa and others reported in 2008 SCW 3546 and New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Suman Bhaskar Pawar and others reported in 2010 (1) Bom. C.R. 319. 12. The case of Machindranath Kernath Kasar Vs. D.S. Mylarappa and others cited supra shows that it had arisen out of collision between truck and bus. D.S. Mylarappa and others reported in 2008 SCW 3546 and New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Suman Bhaskar Pawar and others reported in 2010 (1) Bom. C.R. 319. 12. The case of Machindranath Kernath Kasar Vs. D.S. Mylarappa and others cited supra shows that it had arisen out of collision between truck and bus. Various passengers of the bus had filed claim petitions under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, alleging therein that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The bus driver was examined by his master i.e. State Road Transport Corporation. Despite the deposition of bus driver, the Tribunal found that accident had occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. Therefore, compensation in those cases was granted. None of the drivers was made party in the said proceedings. The bus driver himself had filed claim petition against owner and insurer of the truck for compensation, but the same was dismissed, and ultimately the matter reached the Supreme Court. On the question as to whether the bus driver was necessary party in the petitions filed by the passengers, the Supreme Court held that since the bus driver was examined in those cases, though he was not formal party he can be termed as representing himself in the case. 13. While discussing the law on the subject, the Supreme Court has observed that it would depend upon the facts of each case as to whether the driver is necessary party in the petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Various circumstances, like defence of the owner that driver was driving the vehicle beyond or against instructions were adverted to. It was further held that in such cases the driver may be necessary party or proper party. 14. In the case before us, there is no pleading that driver was acting beyond instructions of the vehicle owner or there was any other special circumstance to show that the driver was necessary party. Reliance placed on the ratio in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Suman Bhaskar Pawar and others is also not helpful to the appellant. In that case the ratio in the case of Machindranath Kernath Kasar Vs. Reliance placed on the ratio in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Suman Bhaskar Pawar and others is also not helpful to the appellant. In that case the ratio in the case of Machindranath Kernath Kasar Vs. D.S. Mylarappa and others cited supra was reiterated and ultimately it was held that though it is desirable to implead the driver of the vehicle as a party, in order to make the owner liable, there is no dictum making it imperative to implead driver as party. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the driver of the bus in the present case was necessary party. Therefore, the contention in that regard will have to be rejected. 15. This takes us to decide about the identity of the motorcycle involved in the accident. The evidence on record would show that besides the certified copy of the FIR and supplementary statement, the appellant has also placed on record Form Comp-AA (Exhibit 24), wherein information of Motorcycle bearing MH-20-AN-9765 is given. Besides, the fact remains that the said motorcycle driver is also charge-sheeted and a criminal case is still pending against him. In the circumstances, on preponderance of probabilities, the learned Member found involvement of the said Motorcycle and the said driver Mohsinkhan Qureshi. Thus, on the facts, the findings of the learned Member of the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. 16. As regards quantum of the compensation, it may be noted that in the post-mortem report, the Medical Officer assessed the age of the deceased as 75 years. The learned Member took into consideration the oral testimony from the side of the claimants and came to the conclusion that the deceased was about 70 years. 17. In the circumstances, finding that death of old lady has been caused, whose valuable services were lost, notional loss of dependency was arrived at Rs.20,000/-per annum. Relying on the judgment in the case of Lata Wadhwa and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 2001 ACJ 1735, multiplier of 5 was adopted by the learned Tribunal. Further compensation on the head of medical expenses and other non pecuniary damages was rejected, as the claimants claimed only Rs.1,00,000/-. 18. In the circumstances, no merit is found in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed without any orders as to costs.