JUDGMENT : Nelson Sailo, J. This Order will dispose of both the appeals. MAC Appeal No. 16/2018 is filed by the National Insurance Company who was arrayed as OP No.2 before the Tribunal while MAC Appeal No.26/2018 is filed by the OP Nos.3 & 4 who are the wife and minor son of the deceased Shri Imanuel Rampanmawia. 2. The facts of the case in brief is that on 01.05.2012 at about 1:50 pm, one motor cycle (CBZ) bearing registration No.MZ-05/2025 driven by the deceased while proceeding towards Saipum village Kolasib met with an accident by dashing against one truck (TATA-1212) bearing registration No.AS-11 AC/0087 belonging to 63 Bn. BSF Headquarters, Lunglei coming from the opposite direction along at Kolasib Silchar road in National Highway No.54. As a result of the accident, the rider of the motor cycle expired on the spot while the pillion rider Mr. Ngurdingliana suffered injuries. The motor cycle was also badly damaged. As a result, Kolasib P.S. case No.24/2012 dated 01.05.2012 under Section 279/304(A) IPC was registered. The driver of the truck was formally arrested but later on released on bail. The dead body of the deceased was taken to the District Hospital at Kolasib for Post Mortem Examination. He was an employee in a private firm under the name and style of PCLS Electricals, at Diakkawn which was owned by Mr. P.C.Lalrohlua and was having a monthly income of Rs.3200/-. 3. As a result of the accident, the mother of the deceased Smti Zaithangi filed a claim application before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal at Aizawl (the Tribunal) and the claim was registered as MACT Case No.46/2015. In the said claim, both the appellants were arrayed as the Opposite Parties and they contested the claim by filing their respective written statement. The Tribunal framed 2 (two) issues for consideration and decision namely; (i) whether the present claim application is maintainable in its present form and style? (ii) whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what extend and who is liable to pay? 4. The claimant examined 2 (two) witnesses during the trial i.e. herself as CW No.1 and Mr. P.C. Lalrohlua, the employer of the deceased person as CW No.2. (ii) whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what extend and who is liable to pay? 4. The claimant examined 2 (two) witnesses during the trial i.e. herself as CW No.1 and Mr. P.C. Lalrohlua, the employer of the deceased person as CW No.2. Consequently, the Tribunal vide its Judgment & Award dated 23.3.2017 disposed of the claim application by awarding the claimant a sum of Rs.5,85,800/- alongwith 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim i.e. 27.7.2015. 5. However, after the Judgment & Award was passed by the Tribunal, the wife and the minor son of the deceased filed Review case No.2/2017 before the Tribunal seeking review of the Judgment & Award dated 23.2.2017. The Review petition was thereafter disposed of vide Judgment & Order dated 12.3.2018 by allowing the same and impleading the wife of the deceased as OP No.3. Liberty was also granted to the claimant to examine other witness if any. Subsequently, the Tribunal disposed of claim application vide its Judgment & Award dated 30.7.2018 by apportioning the awarded compensation of Rs.5,85,800/- between the mother of the deceased and the son of the deceased. It was directed that the claimant will get Rs.3,35,800/- while the OP No.4 who is the minor son of the deceased will get Rs.2,50,000/-. Interest @ Rs.9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application was also awarded and directed to be deposited within a period of one month from the date of the Judgment & Award. Thus, being aggrieved with this judgment, the appellants are in appeal before this Court. 6. Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, the learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 16/2018 by referring to the grounds taken in the appeal submits that the deceased who was the rider of the motor cycle at the time of the accident cannot be treated as a 3rd party. He submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the driving license held by the deceased was only for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and therefore, he did not have the license to ride the motor cycle. The learned counsel further submits that the truck involved in the accident was not even insured. He submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the driving license held by the deceased was only for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and therefore, he did not have the license to ride the motor cycle. The learned counsel further submits that the truck involved in the accident was not even insured. In fact, as per the enquiry report dated 01.05.2012, the accident took place between the BSF truck and the motor cycle because of a rash and negligent act. The Enquiry Officer was also not even examined before the Tribunal to show who was at fault. Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, the learned counsel also submits that the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that neither a compensation towards 3rd party risk is payable nor towards personal accident coverage since the deceased was not a 3rd party and also not the owner of the motor cycle as well. Besides this, the deceased did not possess a valid driving license to drive the motor cycle and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation and that the liability is on the offending truck bearing registration No.AS-11 AC/0087 which is registered in the name of Addl. DIG, FTR Headquarters BSF, P.O. Masimpur, Silchar. Besides this, the learned counsel submits that the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.3,200/- is not established and it exceeds the limited income for preferring a claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. He finally submits that the Tribunal in awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate has travelled beyond the structure formula provided in the Second Schedule of the MV Act. He thus submits that the impugned Judgment & Award under the facts and circumstances cannot be sustained and therefore, should be set aside. Alternatively, the appellant Insurance Company should be absolved from any liability to pay compensation to the parties concerned against the claimed made before the Tribunal. 7. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli appearing for the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 26/2018 submits that the appellant filed Review Case No. 2/2017 before the Tribunal since the mother of the deceased filed the claim application without their knowledge and without impleading them as a party to the claim. 7. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli appearing for the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 26/2018 submits that the appellant filed Review Case No. 2/2017 before the Tribunal since the mother of the deceased filed the claim application without their knowledge and without impleading them as a party to the claim. He submits that the appellant No. 1 is the wife of the deceased and the appellant No. 2 is their minor son. At the relevant time, prior to the accident, the appellant No. 1 and the deceased lived separately by mutual consent. In fact, they were never divorced at any point of time. As such, the appellants have every right to claim compensation since they are his legal heirs. 8. The learned senior counsel submits that the review petition was then allowed by the Tribunal by recalling the Judgment and Award which was already passed on 23.02.2017 vide Judgment and Order dated 12.03.2018. By the same order, the appellant No. 1 was directed to be impleaded as the OP No. 3 in the claim application. The appellants as OP Nos. 3 and 4 in the claim application then examined two witnesses which included the appellant No. 1 as witness No. 1. As for the claimant, she also examined 2 (two) more witnesses besides two (2) witnesses who were already examined earlier. Consequently, the Tribunal vide its Judgment and Award dated 30.07.2018 disposed of the claim application by awarding a sum of Rs. 5,85,800/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application and which was to be apportioned between the claimants and the appellant No. 2 i.e. the minor of the deceased. 9. The learned senior counsel by referring to the grounds taken in the memo of appeal submits that the Tribunal did not follow the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 for awarding compensation towards the future prospect of the deceased. He submits that at the same time the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) was passed much later to the accident which happened on 01.05.2012 and therefore the same may also be not applicable. He submits that at the same time the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) was passed much later to the accident which happened on 01.05.2012 and therefore the same may also be not applicable. He further submits that the Tribunal did not award any compensation towards loss of expectation of life, towards pain and suffering and loss of love and care of minor children. The learned senior counsel further submits that the amount of compensation ought to have been equally apportioned between the claimant and the minor son of the deceased. Since the claimants incurred funeral expenses, she will therefore, get a sum of Rs. 25,000/- extra. 10. The learned senior counsel also submits that the appellant No. 1 and the deceased were not divorced but were only living separately at the relevant time. Referring to the case of Molly Joseph Allias Nish Vs. George Sebastian Alias Joy, (1996) 6 SCC 337 , the learned senior counsel submits that only the Court can declare a marriage to be null and void. Therefore, the appellant No.1 is entitled to receive her share of the compensation along with a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as consortium. In so far as the monthly income of the deceased is concerned, the appellant Insurance Company nowhere disproved the same during the claim proceedings and therefore, it will not be open for them to dispute the same at this stage. 11. Ms. Zairemsangpuii, the learned CGC appearing for the respondent Additional DIG (Prov) FTR Headquarters BSF, Masimpur, Silchar, Assam arrayed as the respondent in both the appeals and OP No. 1 before the Tribunal submits that the deceased at the time of the accident was riding the motor cycle at a very high speed and without wearing a helmet. He therefore lost his balance and hit the BSF truck on its front tyre and as a result, he sustained serious injury in the head and died on the spot. Therefore, it was only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased that the accident occurred and which cost him his life. As for the truck and the driver of the OP No. 1, there was no fault on their part and therefore, the OP No. 1 has no liability to pay any compensation to the claimants. Therefore, it was only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased that the accident occurred and which cost him his life. As for the truck and the driver of the OP No. 1, there was no fault on their part and therefore, the OP No. 1 has no liability to pay any compensation to the claimants. She also submits that if the OP No. 1 is to be held liable to pay the compensation, the matter may be remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration as the OP No. 1 was not given adequate opportunity to contest the case. 12. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 13. From the records, it is seen that the Tribunal initially disposed of the claim vide its Judgment & Award dated 23.2.2017 by awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.5,85,800/- along with 9% interest per annum to the claimant. But the wife and minor son of the deceased later on file Review case No. 2/2017 claiming that they were entitled to compensation as they were the legal heirs of the deceased. The review case was then disposed of by the Tribunal vide its Judgment & Order dated 12.3.2018 by setting aside the Judgment & Award dated 23.02.2017 and allowing the Appeal No.1 in MAC Appeal No.26/2018 to be impleaded as OP No.3 and to contest the claim. Thereafter, the appellant No.1 in MAC. Appeal No.26/2018 examined herself as her witness No.1 and Smti. Lalbiaktluangi as witness No.2. The claimant also examined 2 (two) more witnesses after the review petition was allowed and thereby, examining 4 (four) witnesses in all. It was thereafter that the Tribunal passed the impugned Judgment & Award dated 30.7.2018. 14. It may be seen from the Judgment & Award dated 23.02.2017 passed initially that the Tribunal proceeded on the premise that the truck involved in the accident bearing registration No.AS-11 AC/0087 was insured with the appellant Insurance Company having its validity w.e.f. 24.12.2011 to 23.12.2012. As such, the liability to pay compensation was imposed upon the deemed insurer of the truck. This aspect of the matter though not reiterated by the Tribunal in its subsequent Judgment & Award passed on 30.07.2018 which is impugned in both the appeals, the position has not been changed or altered. As such, the liability to pay compensation was imposed upon the deemed insurer of the truck. This aspect of the matter though not reiterated by the Tribunal in its subsequent Judgment & Award passed on 30.07.2018 which is impugned in both the appeals, the position has not been changed or altered. It is further noticed that the Tribunal has failed to make any meaningful discussion on the facts involved in the case, in its impugned Judgment & Award. All that has been stressed is the rival claims of the mother of the deceased on one hand and the wife and minor son of the deceased on the other hand. Although, the claim has been filed under section 163-A of the M.V. Act which does not require the claimant to prove negligence but at the same time, the basic requirements in a claim under this provision i.e. what is/are the vehicle or vehicles involved in the accident, the type of Insurance policy covering the vehicles involved, the liability of the insurer and the owner, the monthly income of the deceased or injury are amongst other important factors which required to be considered in the claim. 15. In the present case, from a perusal of the impugned Judgment & Award, it is not discernable as to how the Tribunal has computed the award and as to why the appellant Insurance Company has been held to be liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, on this score alone, the impugned Judgment & Award of the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with and the case sent back for fresh consideration. 16. In the result, the matter is remand back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration from the stage of consideration of the evidence of the parties. This Court is not unmindful of the fact that the claim application was filed way back on 27.07.2015 and therefore, the Tribunal shall make an attempt to dispose of the claim application as expeditiously as possible and preferable within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the LCR. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 03.10.2019 whereafter, the Tribunal shall proceed with the claim in accordance with law. 17. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 03.10.2019 whereafter, the Tribunal shall proceed with the claim in accordance with law. 17. It is made clear that any of the observations made herein above will not stand in the way for the Tribunal to consider and dispose of the claim on its own merit. 18. With the above observations and directions, both the appeals are disposed of. 19. Registry shall send back the LCR to the Tribunal immediately.