JUDGMENT S N Pathak, J. - This appeal has been preferred against the Award dated 20.03.2012 passed by Additional District Judge-I-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pakur in Motor Vehicle Claim Case No.15 of 2010, whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to allow the claim of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 7,68,000/- to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 within a month w.e.f. 20.03.2012 and if the amount is not paid within stipulated period the respondent Nos.1 & 2 are entitled for penal interest @ 9 % per annum w.e.f. 20.03.2012 till date of payment and they are also entitled for realization of amount through process of law. 2. As per the claim petition, the claimants are parents of deceased Jamir Momin and according to the claim petition, the deceased Jamir Momin aged about 19 years was a permanent Khalasi of three wheeler tempo bearing No. JH 16 A 2772 and was employed by Ajijur Rehman and earning Rs. 6000/- per month as Khalasi-cumconductor. On 22.02.2010 at about 12:15 PM at Pakur Hiranpur Main Road under Village Shaharkol, P.S. Pakur, District Pakur, the said three wheeler was going towards Hiranpur and at village Shaharkol, the passengers were getting down from the tempo and the deceased also got down from the vehicle and was collecting fare from the passengers when another tempo bearing No. JH 16 A 1342 being driven rashly and negligently dashed the deceased and he received severe injuries on his vital parts and succumbed. The offending Tempo having Registration No. JH 16 A 1342 was owned by one Dolores Marandi and being driven by Sanatan Das @ Ajay Das and was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. The claimants have claimed Rs. 9,31,000/- with interest. 3. The owner of the vehicle has stated in her written statement that allegation is false and baseless. She has also stated that claimants have no valid cause of action and no document regarding age, occupation and income of the deceased has been filed. She has also denied the involvement of her vehicle in the accident. She has also denied the claim amount and other facts mentioned in the claim petition. She has also stated that claimants have no valid cause of action and no document regarding age, occupation and income of the deceased has been filed. She has also denied the involvement of her vehicle in the accident. She has also denied the claim amount and other facts mentioned in the claim petition. She has however admitted that the driver Sanatan Das was having valid and effective driving licence and her vehicle was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company and the policy was valid from 17.02.2010 to 16.02.2011. 4. The respondent No.3-Relianace General Insurance Company Ltd. appellant has stated in its written statement that the driver was not having valid /effective driving licence. It has also stated that it has no knowledge of the accident and the insurance policy is not verified and it reserves the right to file additional written statement after verification. However, no additional written statement was filed. 5. The parties appeared before the Tribunal and were heard. After examining the witnesses and perusing the evidences on record, the learned Tribunal framed the followings issues:- I) Whether the claim petition as framed is maintainable ? II) Whether the claimant has valid cause of action for filing the claim petition ? III) Whether the driver had the valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident ? IV) Whether the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently ? V) Whether the deceased Jamir Momin died due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. JH 16 A 1342 ? VI) Whether the vehicle bearing Registration No. JH 16 A 1342 was insured at the time of accident ? VII) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation as claimed, if so to what extent ? VIII) Whether the owner or the insurer of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation ? 6. Learned Tribunal after perusal of the records and examining the evidences and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, came to a finding that the claimants are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,68,000/- within a month w.e.f. 20.03.2012 and if the amount is not paid within stipulated period the respondent Nos.1 & 2 are entitled for penal interest @ 9 % per annum w.e.f. 20.03.2012 till date of payment and they are also entitled for realization of amount through process of law. 7. Mr. 7,68,000/- within a month w.e.f. 20.03.2012 and if the amount is not paid within stipulated period the respondent Nos.1 & 2 are entitled for penal interest @ 9 % per annum w.e.f. 20.03.2012 till date of payment and they are also entitled for realization of amount through process of law. 7. Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Co. assailed the impugned award on the ground that deceased monthly income has been assessed to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- without any documentary proof as the claimants have failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased. In absence of any documentary or oral evidence, the Court could have either computed the compensation on the basis of notional income as mention in the Motor Vehicles Act or at the best, the learned Court below ought to have been computed the compensation accepting the income of the deceased as per the minimum wages fixed for a khalasi by the State Government. Learned counsel further argues that the appellant being the insurer of the offending vehicle was only liable to indemnify owner of the tempo for the loss suffered on usage of the said tempo. Admittedly, the accident occurred and the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of an offending vehicle for which neither the owner far less its insurer can be saddled with any liability. Learned counsel further argues that deceased contributed to the occurrence and hence he is liable for contributory negligence as he was collecting fare from the passenger by standing in the wrong side of the road and due to his negligence and fault on his part, the accident took place. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 justifies the impugned award. 9. Be that as it may, in view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and after perusal of the records, admittedly, there was no denial of accident and death of the deceased was due to the accident. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 justifies the impugned award. 9. Be that as it may, in view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and after perusal of the records, admittedly, there was no denial of accident and death of the deceased was due to the accident. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the impugned award and as such, the appellant is directed to pay the entire amount as awarded by the learned Tribunal with all terms and conditions as stipulated therein,, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant is directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal for its payment to the claimant and for that office / Registry shall do the needful. 10. Office is directed to return the lower Court records to the Court below at the earliest. 11. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.