JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 06.10.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sujangarh, District Churu in MACT Case No. 3/2015, whereby learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties decided the claim petition of the respondents-claimants and awarded a sum of Rs. 13,71,000/- as compensation to them on account of the death of Ganesh Ram in the accident which occurred on 27.04.2014. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company vehemently submitted that findings of the Tribunal on Issue No.2 are erroneous, as the appellant-Insurance Company is under an obligation to compensate the award amount to the insurer/owner of the vehicle and since the owner of the vehicle was not arrayed as party respondent in the present case, the appellant is not liable to indemnify the amount of compensation. Thus, the Tribunal committed an error in deciding Issue No.2 against the appellant. 3. Learned counsel further submits that it has come on record that Ganesh Ram was working as a Mason and was also involved in the agricultural work of the family. The income of the deceased Ganesh Ram was wrongly assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.9,000/- per month. He submits that no evidence in support of the income of the deceased was produced before the Tribunal, therefore, the income assessed by the Tribunal is quite excessive. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, while opposing the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the findings of the Tribunal on Issue No. 2 are absolutely correct. He submits that Smt. Jamna Devi, being the wife of late Pusa Ram, is claimant No. 5 in the present case and, therefore, she has not been arrayed as party respondent being the owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel further submits that the objection raised by the counsel for the appellant is highly technical and if Smt. Jamna Devi is not arrayed as party respondent, the appellant cannot be absolved from paying the compensation to the claimants in this case. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the evidence of the deceased Ganesh Ram being involved in the work of construction and agriculture was produced before the Tribunal in shape of the testimony of Smt. Lichhma Devi. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the evidence of the deceased Ganesh Ram being involved in the work of construction and agriculture was produced before the Tribunal in shape of the testimony of Smt. Lichhma Devi. As per her statement, deceased Ganesh Ram was doing the work of Masonry and was also helping the family in the agricultural work and thereby he was earning a monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. The Tribunal, therefore, had rightly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month. 6. He therefore, prays that no interference in the judgment dated 06.10.2018 is warranted by this Court. 7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the judgment dated 06.10.2018 as well as the other relevant documents of the case. 8. The finding of the Tribunal on Issue No.2, that the claimants are entitled for the claim as the deceased Ganesh Ram was sitting in the car, is required to be upheld as the risk of the deceased Ganesh Ram was very well covered by the Insurance Company as per the insurance policy. Ganesh Ram was not travelling in the car as an owner of the vehicle, because owner of the vehicle was Pusa Ram who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. In the accident, Pusa Ram who was the father of Ganesh Ram, also died but no claim application was preferred on his behalf. This Court is of the view that the Insurance Company has stepped into the shoes of the owner while compensating the award. Since the owners of the vehicle are the claimants, therefore, it is undisputed that no other person can claim the damages except the claimants who are the owners of the vehicle in the present case. The objection of the learned counsel for the appellant that Smt. Jamna Devi was not arrayed as party respondent in the capacity of the owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Company will not indemnify or pay the amount awarded vide judgment dated 06.10.2018, appears to be highly technical. Therefore, it is held that even if Smt. Jamna Devi was not arrayed as party respondent in the capacity of owner of the vehicle in the present case, the Insurance Company shall pay the claim amount in pursuance of the directions issued by the learned Tribunal dated 06.10.2018. The findings on Issue No.2 are, therefore, upheld. 9. Therefore, it is held that even if Smt. Jamna Devi was not arrayed as party respondent in the capacity of owner of the vehicle in the present case, the Insurance Company shall pay the claim amount in pursuance of the directions issued by the learned Tribunal dated 06.10.2018. The findings on Issue No.2 are, therefore, upheld. 9. The income of the deceased Ganesh Ram is taken by the Tribunal as Rs. 9,000/- on account of the fact that the deceased Ganesh Ram was performing the work of a Mason and was also involved in the family business of agriculture. 10. In view of the present set of facts and the testimony of Smt. Licchma Devi, the amount assessed by the Tribunal appears to be justified and the same is not required to be interfered with. The computation of the award done by the Tribunal, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity. 11. In view of the discussions made above, there is no force in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 12. The amount awarded by the Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 06.10.2018 in favour of the respondents-claimants shall be disbursed to them at the earliest.