JUDGMENT Nelson Sailo, J. - Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant. Also heard Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned Standing counsel Oriental Insurance Company appearing for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5. None appears for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3. 2. Be it stated herein that the respondent Nos. 1 & 3 were served notice by way of Dasti, while the respondent No. 2 was served notice in a substituted manner by newspaper publication. The notices served upon them have been filed by the appellant by way of an affidavit. As such, notice on the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are complete. 3. This is an appeal filed by the appellant/claimant against the Judgment & Award dated 24.09.2015 passed by the Member cum Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal), Aizawl in MACT Case No. 16/2013 dismissing the claim of the appellant, which was filed under Section 163 A of the MV Act, 1988 (MV Act). 4. According to the appellant, his son C. Lalhlupuia, aged 21 years met with an a motor vehicular accident on 08.03.2011 at Vaivakawn Zohnuai, Aizawl at around 6:30 p.m. while he was travelling as a pillion rider in a Karizma Bike bearing Registration No. MZ 01 F/7496 belonging to the respondent No. 1. As the Bike was proceeding towards Aizawl, it dashed with one Maruti 800 (Taxi) bearing Registration No. MZ 01 C/9707 belonging to the respondent No. 5 and driven by one Sh. Lalthangliana, which was coming from the opposite direction. As a result, the son of the appellant fell down from the moving Bike and he was run over by a moving Truck bearing Registration No. JK 02 U 0577 belonging to the respondent No. 2 and insured with the respondent No. 4 Insurance Company. As for the Bike in which the son of the appellant was travelling, the same was insured with the respondent No. 3 under Policy No. 35100731106201064531 with a validity from 13.09.2010 to 12.09.2011. The Truck was insured with the respondent No. 4 under Policy No. 262102/31/2011/1264 with a validity from 16.07.2010 to 15.07.2011. It may be noted that the date of accident was 08.03.2011 and it was during the validity of both the above insurance policies. The Truck was insured with the respondent No. 4 under Policy No. 262102/31/2011/1264 with a validity from 16.07.2010 to 15.07.2011. It may be noted that the date of accident was 08.03.2011 and it was during the validity of both the above insurance policies. As a result of the accident, the son of the appellant succumbed to his injuries at the spot. Thus, the appellant filed a claim application before the Tribunal on 12.02.2013 under Section 163 A of the MV Act, claiming compensation for the death of his son. 5. According to the appellant, his son was working as a junior carpenter and was having a monthly income of Rs. 3,000/-. In support of his claim, the appellant examined himself as the CW-1 and also the employer of the deceased as CW-2. The respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 & 5, who were arrayed as OP-1, 3, 4 & 5 before the Tribunal filed their respective written statements opposing the claim of the appellant. They however did not lead any evidence by examining witness/witnesses of their own. After the appellant led his evidence, the Tribunal heard the rival parties and thereafter passed the impugned judgment & award, dismissing the claim on the ground that the pillion rider of the motor cycle was not covered by the insurance policy of the Insurance Company, with whom the motor cycle was insured. The appellant thus being aggrieved has filed the instant appeal. 6. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal committed error in passing the judgment & award inasmuch as, it held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the Bike rider and he was under the influence of liquor and as a result of which, a Police case was also registered. Therefore, if compensation was to be given to the claimant, the insurer of the Bike would be liable. But however, as the Insurance policy did not cover the pillion rider, no compensation was payable. The learned counsel therefore submits that the learned Tribunal proceeded with the case as if it was a claim filed on fault basis. However, the facts remains that the claim was filed under Section 163 A of the MV Act and therefore, the claimant is not required to prove the negligence or fault in order to be compensated. The learned counsel therefore submits that the learned Tribunal proceeded with the case as if it was a claim filed on fault basis. However, the facts remains that the claim was filed under Section 163 A of the MV Act and therefore, the claimant is not required to prove the negligence or fault in order to be compensated. In support of his submission, the learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to paragraph No. 14 of the impugned judgment & award. 7. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal had also committed an error in law and on facts by coming to a finding that the pillion rider of the motor cycle was not covered by the Insurance Company. Referring to page 14 of the Memorandum of Appeal, which is the insurance policy of the motor cycle, the learned counsel submits that the same was exhibited by the appellant before the Tribunal as exhibit C4. A perusal of the same clearly indicates that the seating capacity of the motor cycle is two (2) and that an extra premium of Rs. 490/- was paid under the head "legal liability" and against sub-paragraph (e) "for any other extra". He therefore submits that even on this count, the learned Tribunal had committed an error in dismissing the claim of the appellant. In so far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the CW2, who is the employer of the deceased clearly deposed before the Court that he engaged the deceased in his carpentry work-shop by paying him a monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/-. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute with regard to the monthly earning of the deceased. 8. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel also submits that in terms of the Notification dated 22.05.2018, issued by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, the Second Schedule under Section 163 A of the MV Act has been amended. He submits that under Clause 1 (a), which is for fatal accidents and the compensation payable is fixed at Rs. 5 Lakhs. Under paragraph 2 of the said notification, it is further provided that there shall be an increase of 5 % annually on the lumpsum amount, w.e.f. the first day of January, 2019. He submits that under Clause 1 (a), which is for fatal accidents and the compensation payable is fixed at Rs. 5 Lakhs. Under paragraph 2 of the said notification, it is further provided that there shall be an increase of 5 % annually on the lumpsum amount, w.e.f. the first day of January, 2019. He therefore submits that the appellant is entitled to be compensated under the said notification along with the interest provided therein, apart from the usual interest awarded by the Tribunal. 9. Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 Insurance Company submits that the respondent No. 4 filed written statement before the Tribunal, raising certain preliminary objections to the claim. In the objection made on merit, the respondent No. 4 categorically stated that it did not admit whatever claim was made by the claimant and the same should be put to strict proof. As for the monthly income of the deceased, it was and is the stand of the respondent No. 4that the same is without any basis and apparently an arrangement between the claimant and the alleged employer of the deceased. He therefore submits that the learned Tribunal had rightly rejected the claim of the appellant. 10. Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that as the Taxi was insured with ICICI Lombard Insurance Company and the policy being valid at the time of the accident, the respondent No. 5 has no liability to pay any compensation to the claimant. He also submits that likewise, the motor cycle was insured with the respondent No. 3 Insurance Company and if the appellant is found to be entitled to compensation, the same should be paid by the said Insurance Company. 11. I have heard the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 12. Facts not in dispute are that the accident occurred on 08.03.2011 and the son of the appellant, due to the said accident died on the spot. He was riding as a pillion rider in the motor cycle bearing Registration No. MZ 01 F/7496, which was validly insured with the respondent No. 3 Insurance Company. A bare perusal of the insurance policy exhibited by the appellant as Exhibit-C4 would go to show that the motor cycle has a seating capacity for two persons. Further, an extra premium of Rs. A bare perusal of the insurance policy exhibited by the appellant as Exhibit-C4 would go to show that the motor cycle has a seating capacity for two persons. Further, an extra premium of Rs. 490/- was paid by the policy holder towards legal liability/for any other extra. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal could not have proceeded with the case as a claim filed on fault basis as undisputedly it was a claim made under Section 163 A of the MV Act. This apart, the finding of the Tribunal that the insurance policy did not cover a pillion rider is also not what the record reveals. The insurance policy is exhibited as Exhibit C-3 and not C-4 from the records. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned Judgment & Award passed by the Tribunal dismissing the claim cannot be sustained. While coming to such a finding, this Court is also not unmindful about the fact that the accident occurred on 08.03.2011 and therefore, is of the view that the matter should not be remanded back to the Tribunal. Moreso, in view of the fact that the Notification dated 22.05.2018, issued by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways has fixed an amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs as compensation for a claim under Section 163 A of the MV Act, in case of fatal accidents. 13. While taking note of the fact that the motor cycle was validly insured with the respondent No. 3, this Court also notices that the Truck bearing Registration No. JK 02 U 0577 was also validly insured with the respondent No. 4. There is nothing in the written statement filed by the respondent No. 4, disputing the insurance policy of the motor cycle under the respondent No. 3. Further, although the respondent No. 2, who is the Truck owner failed to contest the case but the fact remains that the Truck was validly insured with the respondent No. 4. 14. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Sinitha And Others, (2012) 2 SCC 356 held that the stand taken by an Insurance Company in its written statement has to be fortified by leading evidence and that it is only in such event, that the stand taken can be acted upon to adjudicate the matter. 14. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Sinitha And Others, (2012) 2 SCC 356 held that the stand taken by an Insurance Company in its written statement has to be fortified by leading evidence and that it is only in such event, that the stand taken can be acted upon to adjudicate the matter. In the instant case, as already noticed, none of the opposite parties including the Insurance Company have led evidence. Thus, upon considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to compensation as stipulated in the Notification dated 22.05.2018. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the amount to be awarded should be borne equally by the Insurance Companies with whom the motor cycle and the Truck was registered. 15. The appellant thus is entitled to a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs, which shall be paid in equal shares by the respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4, i.e., M/S National Insurance Company & Oriental Insurance Company respectively. The awarded sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs, shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim application, i.e., 12.02.2013 till the amount is finally paid. Additionally, in terms of Notification dated 22.05.2018, there shall be an addition of 5 % to the principal amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs, which can be quantified as Rs. 25,000/-. 16. The entire amount shall be deposited by the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 before the Tribunal within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same shall be disbursed to the appellant as per usual formality. 17. With the above observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of, as allowed. Registry to send back the LCR.