Judgment and Order (Oral) Heard Mr. U.K. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellants as well as Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Despite due notice, there is no representation from the respondent No.1. 2. This is an appeal for enhancement of the award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act from the judgment and award dated 19.08.2014 passed in T.S. (MAC) No.222 of 2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by its judgment dated19.08.2014 has observed as under: “Petitioner No.1 is the nephew of the deceased. He is the son of petitioner No.3. Petitioner No.1 does not appear before the court to depose. Since he is the son of petitioner no.3 it can be legally presumed that he was dependent on the income of his father (petitioner No.3) if he was minor. If he is major he is considered either be independent or earning or dependent of his father and this is also as per observation of Apex Court in Sarala Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation. Thus, considering the above facts petitioner no.1 nephew of the deceased also cannot be considered as dependent and entitled for compensation for loss of dependency. Thus, it is considered that petitioner no.1 and 2 are not entitled to get compensation on account of loss of dependency. But they being the near relative of the deceased I award Rs.45,000/towards loss of love and affection and Rs.15,000/for funeral expenses. In total Rs. 60,000/and they will get it in equal share.” The tribunal has fastened the liability of payment on the owner of the vehicle, the respondent No.1 herein, as some documents, submitted by the owner, were not brought in the evidence. 3. Mr. U.K. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the claimant-appellant No.2 is the adopted son of the deceased namely Jogendra Sarkar, who was hit by the offending motor bike bearing No.TR02B5638 (Yamaha) when it was being driven rashly and negligently. The deceased receives several injuries from the said accident which occurred on 31.12.2008 and succumbed to his injuries at GBP hospital in Agartala on 02.01.2009. 4. There is no dispute that the deceased was a bachelor and of 29(twenty nine) years old. The deceased was a cultivator and vegetableseller. According to the claimant-appellants, he used to earn Rs.7,000/per month. The deceased receives several injuries from the said accident which occurred on 31.12.2008 and succumbed to his injuries at GBP hospital in Agartala on 02.01.2009. 4. There is no dispute that the deceased was a bachelor and of 29(twenty nine) years old. The deceased was a cultivator and vegetableseller. According to the claimant-appellants, he used to earn Rs.7,000/per month. There is no dispute that the said vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2, but that fact was ignored by the tribunal and the liability to pay the award has been shifted to the owner. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel having pointed out this aspect has submitted that the respondent No.2 is supposed to pay the awarded sum. This court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and award dated 19.08.2014 so far the quantum is concerned. However, this court is inclined to interfere with the direction that the award shall be satisfied by the respondent No.1, the owner of the vehicle bearing No. TR02B5638 (Yamaha). Accordingly, it is interfered. The respondent No.2 shall pay the award with interest in the manner as directed by the tribunal and such payment shall be made in the tribunal within the period of 2(two) months from today. So far the distribution and disbursement of the award is concerned, it shall be made in accordance with the impugned judgment as passed by the tribunal. 4. Subject to the modification as made above, this appeal is dismissed. Send down the LCRs forthwith.