JUDGMENT & ORDER : S.G. SHAH, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Dakshesh Mehta for the appellant. Perused the record. 2. Notice upon respondent no.3 is un-served but considering the fact that otherwise also respondent no.3 was served by publication of his notice in gazette even before the Tribunal and when he has absent before the Tribunal and thereby, when matter was decided ex-parte against him and more particularly on scrutiny of record and proceedings when there is no substance in appeal, notice upon un-served respondent no.3 is waived. For the purpose reliance can be placed on decision in the case of A. Robert V/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, (1999) AIR SC 2977 and order XLI Rule 14(4). of the Civil Procedure Code. 3. The sum and substance of the appeal by the Insurance Company is to the effect that there was no proper evidence on record regarding insurance policy in favour of the owner of the vehicle which was involved in the accident and therefore, Insurance Company should not be held responsible to indemnify such owner. 4. Thereby, though there is no dispute regarding nature of incident, involvement of vehicle and its result, those facts are not much material. Since, all such details are well described in the pleading and impugned judgment, its reproduction is avoided. 5. However, scrutiny of record and proceedings as well as impugned judgment makes it clear that on 05.05.2001 when victim Raisingbhai Shanabhai Parmar was travelling in Tractor-trolley bearing registration No. GJ-7 AA - 2209 with GJ X 3307, a heavy vehicle being dumper bearing registration No. GJ-3 V-8101 has dashed it on its back side, which resulted into serious fatal injuries to victim Raisingbhai for which he died after two years of such incident. Therefore, injured victim had preferred M.A.C.P. No.1464 of 2001 before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Kheda at Nadiad claiming Rs. 75,000/- towards compensation for the injuries received by him. However, pending petition when injured victim has expired, his legal heirs were joined and continued the claim petition. 6. After evidence, the Tribunal has considered that victim was earning Rs. 3000/- per month and when he has received grievous injuries including fracture and when relevant evidence for accident is produced on record by claimants to prove expenses incurred after the incident the Tribunal has awarded following amounts on different heads:- Rs. 10,000/- Actual loss of income. Rs. 6. After evidence, the Tribunal has considered that victim was earning Rs. 3000/- per month and when he has received grievous injuries including fracture and when relevant evidence for accident is produced on record by claimants to prove expenses incurred after the incident the Tribunal has awarded following amounts on different heads:- Rs. 10,000/- Actual loss of income. Rs. 15,000/- Pain, Shock & suffering. Rs. 10,000/- Special diet, Attendance and Transportation. Rs. 20,000/- Medical Bills. Rs. 55,000/- Total compensation 7. When Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 55,000/- with proportionate cost and only 7.5% interest p.a. after detailed reasoned order, I do not see any reason or substance to interfere with in such amount of compensation. 8. However, main contention is regarding non existence of insurance policy of offending vehicle No.GJ-3 V-8101. However, there is no substances in such submission also, when claimants have produced on record a copy of Form 54, which is wrongly stated as form no.14 issued by the investigating agency disclosing FIR no., date of incident, name of injured, no. of vehicle involved in the incident and details about the driver, owner and insurer of such vehicle with its registration no., engine no. and chases no. With such form claimants have also produced on record copies of FIR and panchnama wherein also involvement of vehicle No. GJ 3 V 8101 is properly disclosed. Charge-sheet filed against opponent no.1 also discloses that he was negligent while driving such vehicle being dumper No. GJ 3 V 8101. Whereas form no.54 categorical discloses that vehicle involved in the accident is GJ 3 V 8101 and it was insured with National Insurance Company Limited. Such form was also shows and endorsement that copy of such form is forwarded to the Ahmedabad Office of National Insurance Company Limited by investigating agency. Therefore, Insurance Company is aware about existence of insurance policy immediately after incident and thereby, though they have taken stand both before the Tribunal and before this Court that there is no evidence to prove that such vehicle was insured with them, they have failed to realize that before the Tribunal as back as on 29.12.2012 advocate of the appellant Insurance Company has in categorical term, by filing purshish at Exh.59, made a disclosure that vehicle No.GJ 3 V 8101 was insured by National Insurance Company vide policy No.30/3003/00630000/145 for a period between 27.12.2000 to 26.12.2001. Therefore, when date of accident is 05.05.2001, there was insurance policy effective for vehicle No.GJ 3 V 8101. 9. In view of such disclosure Insurance Company cannot plead that there is no evidence on record to prove insurance policy, it seems that appellants have forgotten to scrutinize their stand before the Tribunal in form of Exh.59. However, in above facts and circumstances, when Insurance Company has made disclosure on their own about the existence of policy for vehicle no. GJ 3 V 8101 with policy number and its period and when driver of such vehicle was found negligent and thereby, when owner of such vehicle was held liable to pay compensation to the claimants, there is no option for the Insurance Company to indemnify owner by making payment directly to the claimant as per award. Therefore, there is no substance in appeal and hence, appeal is dismissed. Notice is discharged. 10. R & P to be send back to the concerned trial Court.