ORDER : 1. In the instant appeal, the appellants have thrown challenge to award dated 15.12.2014 (for short “the impugned award”) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udhampur (for short “the Tribunal”) in the claim petition titled as “Sandhya Devi and others Vs Shoukat Ali and another.” 2. Facts emerging from the record reveal that one Mulkh Raj, S/o Mohan Lal, R/o Manpa, Udhampur, aged 42 years (for short “the deceased”), working as a Mazdoor/Central Govt. employee while travelling in a tractor trolley bearing registration No. JK14/3768 (for short “the offending vehicle”) sustained injuries on account of fall therefrom at Badali, resulting into multiple injuries to him and later on his death at the Military Hospital, Udhampur, whereupon the claimants-his legal heirs including his wife – Sandhya Devi/respondents 1 to 7 herein filed a claim petition for compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”). 3. The claimants/respondents 1 to 7 herein in the said claim petition impleaded the driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Shoukat Ali as a respondent/being respondent 8 herein. The Tribunal after entertaining the claim petition summoned the above named respondent. On 11.05.2011 Advocate Sunil Kumar appeared on behalf of the respondent. On 19.07.2011 an application came to be filed by the claimants/respondents 1 to 7 herein for impleadment of the owner of the vehicle, namely, Pritam Sharma, to which the counsel for the respondent/driver did not object to, as a consequence whereof on 23.09.2011 said Pritam Sharma came to be impleaded as a party respondent too in the claim petition and the said newly substituted respondent came to be summoned by the Tribunal. On 08.02.2012, Advocate Sunil Sharma appeared on behalf of the newly substituted respondent-Pritam Sharma and sought time to file objections and also power of attorney on his behalf. The said counsel continued to appear on behalf of the said respondent/owner and appeared in the subsequent proceedings as well as on 28.03.2012 & on 11.06.2012, seeking time to file objections as also the power of attorney. 4. The said counsel continued to appear on behalf of the said respondent/owner and appeared in the subsequent proceedings as well as on 28.03.2012 & on 11.06.2012, seeking time to file objections as also the power of attorney. 4. On 03.08.2012, the claimants/respondents 1 to 7 herein yet again filed another application for amendment of the claim petition and as a consequence of the non-appearance of the respondents in the claim petition and their failure to file objections to the amendment application, the Tribunal in terms of order dated 05.04.2013 allowed the application and substituted the respondent 2- Pritam Sharma by one Amar Nath, S/o Ram Saran, R/o Village Manpa, as the claimants/respondents 1 to 7 herein have had stated in the amendment application that said Amar Nath infact is the owner of the offending vehicle and not Pritam Sharma. 5. On 05.04.2013 itself, the Tribunal directed issuance of a notice to the newly substituted respondent Amar Nath, whereafter on 12.07.2013 one Advocate Sunil Thappa appeared on his behalf and sought time for filing objections. Respondent 1 in the claim petition, in the meantime, being the driver of the offending vehicle have had been set ex-parte. On 21.10.2013, Advocate Sunil Sharma appeared on behalf of the respondent 2/the newly substituted owner, filed Vakalatnama as also the objections to the claim petition, whereafter the Tribunal on 03.01.2014 on the basis of the pleadings of the contesting parties framed the following issues:- 1. Whether deceased, Mulkh Raj in a road traffic accident which was caused on 12.12.10 at Badali, Udhampur by respondent No.1 on account of the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle (Tractor Trolly) No.JK14/3768 when deceased was traveling alongwith cement bags in offending vehicle? OPP 2. If issue Noll is proved in affirmative, whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what effect arid from whom? OPP 3. Relief. OP parties. 6. OPP 2. If issue Noll is proved in affirmative, whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what effect arid from whom? OPP 3. Relief. OP parties. 6. On account of continuous non-appearance of the respondent 2 and his counsel, the Tribunal set the respondent 2 as well ex-parte on 31.07.2014 and the claimants/respondents 1 to 7 herein came to be directed to lead evidence in ex-parte, whereafter the claimants/respondents 1 to 7 herein filed the evidence affidavits in ex-parte evidence being the claimant- Sandhya Devi appearing as her own witness besides the witnesses, namely, Arun Kumar, Jatinder Kumar & Kaka Ram, also produced documentary evidence in the form of FIR, death certificate of the deceased and the certificate of registration of offending vehicle. 7. The Tribunal upon conclusion of the adjudication of the claim petition passed the impugned award in favour of the claimants/respondents 1 to 7 herein holding that the claimants have been able to prove the issues 1 & 2, onus whereof was put on them and consequently on the basis of the evidence on record awarded an amount of Rs. 22,56,737/- as compensation to the claimants against the respondents in the claim petition jointly and severally along with interest @ Rs. 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its actual payment. 8. The appellants herein are the successors-in-interest of the registered owner of the offending vehicle, namely, Amar Nath stated to have been died on 01.01.2015 and have called in question the impugned award on the following grounds in the memo of appeal:- 1. That the award impugned is bad in law and facts of the case, the same as such is liable to be set aside. 2. That the ex-parte award and the ex-parte evidences have no force of law as such cannot be executed without affording opportunity of hearing to the legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor, the award impugned being devoid of merit is liable to be set aside. 3. That the police report placed on record of the claim petition and on the basis of which the tribunal has recorded its findings in respect of the accident is false and concocted as no accident as alleged by the respondents has ever occasioned. The findings so recorded are perverse and as such are bad in law, the award impugned is liable to be set aside. 4. The findings so recorded are perverse and as such are bad in law, the award impugned is liable to be set aside. 4. That the appointment on compassionate grounds of the widow of the deceased too remained unnoticed by the tribunal, nor the tribunal has taken into consideration the benefits drawn by the widow of the deceased, that way the tribunal has not maintained balance in between the losses and gains suffered and received by the respondents/claimants, the award impugned as such is bad and is liable to be set aside. 5. That the tribunal has further lost sight of the fact that the appellants who were not the parties in the claim petition, neither been arrayed as respondents, have been proceeded against in the execution petition and without permitting them to agitate the matter are being forced to satisfy the award impugned or lest shall be arrested or their only house would be attached and put on auction, which proceedings of the tribunal are bad as such the award impugned and the application for execution of the award impugned are liable to be set aside and dismissed accordingly. 6. That presuming but not admitting that the deceased has died because of the alleged accident then the tribunal, even if it was an ex-parte proceeding, was under an obligation to enquire in to the matter in so far as the benefits drawn by the respondents/claimants are concerned and further to take notice of the entire matter. The claimants/respondents have managed to obtain an award without assisting the tribunal. The tribunal while it considered the deceased Mulkh Raj as the Central Government Employee working in IFOD could have considered the appointment of the widow of the deceased Mulkh Raj on compassionate appointment and the tribunal it is submitted should have computed the compensation that way, which has not been done, the award impugned thus is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. 7. That the deceased owner of the tractor was arrayed as respondent only on 5-04-2013, as such, the interest part of the award that speaks of accrual from the date of application is bad and unsustainable in law, the award as such is liable to be set aside. 8. 7. That the deceased owner of the tractor was arrayed as respondent only on 5-04-2013, as such, the interest part of the award that speaks of accrual from the date of application is bad and unsustainable in law, the award as such is liable to be set aside. 8. That the tractor in question was regularly being insured by the State Bank of India for securing its loan and because of its negligence the said tractor was not insured on the date of alleged accident. Tractor it is submitted was insured up to 27.08.2010, alleged accident in question, as reported by the police, came to occur on 12.12.2010 and the bank further insured the said tractor on 13.12.2010. For the negligence of the bank, the appellants being the legal representatives of the deceased owner of the tractor are being punished and that too because of their no fault. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Insofar as the grounds 1 & 2 supra in the memo of appeal that the impugned award is bad in law and facts of the case and that is an ex-parte award and the ex-parte evidences has no force of law and cannot be executed without affording opportunity of hearing to the legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor are concerned, said grounds urged by the appellants are grossly misconceived in law as the said grounds do not spell out as to why the award is bad in law and facts or that as to why ex-parte evidence in the matter has no force of law and the ex-parte award cannot be executed against the legal representatives of the deceased owner of the offending vehicle without hearing them. 10. 10. Insofar as ground 3 supra, wherein it is urged that the police report placed on the record of the claim petition on the basis of which the Tribunal recorded its findings in respect of the accident is false and concocted, as no accident had ever happened and, as such, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse and bad in law is concerned, it is significant to note here that the police report relied upon by the claimants/respondents 1 to 7 herein before the Tribunal revealed that the accident in question have had happened and the deceased had got injured in the said accident and thereafter on account of the said injuries died. A bare perusal of the police report would show that upon registration of the FIR in the matter pertaining to the accident in question on 13.12.2010, registered at the instance of real brother of the deceased, namely, Munshi Ram, who had reported the accident and the consequent death of the deceased on 13.12.2010, the investigating agency found that the deceased had sustained injuries there in the said accident while travelling there in the said vehicle along with his cement load from his shop to his house, which accident had been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and after sustaining injuries in the said accident, the deceased got admitted in Military Hospital, Udhampur where the deceased died at 1800 p.m. The said police report further reveals that upon the death of the deceased, the dead body of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem in the hospital at Udhampur and thereafter came to be handed over to his heirs for performing last rites and the said investigation concluded the commission of offences under Section 279/304-A RPC read with Section 186 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In presence of the aforesaid uncontroverted and unrebutted police report produced by the claimants/respondents 1 to 7 herein before the Tribunal and relied upon by the Tribunal in connection with the issues framed in the matter, the instant ground urged by the appellants that no accident had ever happened and the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard are perverse cannot but be said to be a figment of imagination. 11. 11. Insofar as the ground 4 supra urged by the appellants in the memo of appeal that the Tribunal while awarding compensation to the claimants/respondents 1 to 7 herein did not take into consideration the appointment of the widow of the deceased on compassionate grounds as also the benefits drawn by her, is concerned, the said ground in light of the judgment of the Apex Court passed on 07.03.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 8867/2012 in case titled as “National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rekhaben and others” pales into significance, where in the Apex Court in the said judgment at para 19 observed as under:- “19. In the cases before us, compensation is claimed from the owner of the offending vehicle who is different from the employer who has offered employment on compassionate grounds to the dependants of the deceased/injured. The source from which compensation on account of the accident is claimed and the source from which the compassionate employment is offered, are completely separate and there is no co-relation between these two sources. Since the tort feasor has not offered the compassionate appointment, we are of the view that an amount which a claimant earns by his labour or by offering his services, whether by reason of compassionate appointment or otherwise is not liable to be deducted from the compensation which the claimant is entitled to receive from a tort feasor under the Act. In such a situation, we are of the view that the financial benefit of the compassionate employment is not liable to be deducted at all from the compensation amount which is liable to be paid either by the owner/the driver of the offending vehicle or the insurer.” 12. In such a situation, we are of the view that the financial benefit of the compassionate employment is not liable to be deducted at all from the compensation amount which is liable to be paid either by the owner/the driver of the offending vehicle or the insurer.” 12. Insofar as ground 5 supra urged by the appellants in the memo of appeal that the Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the appellants were neither party in the claim petition nor were arrayed as respondents but came to proceed against in the execution petition without permitting them to agitate the matter is concerned, it is manifest from the record that the appellants herein being the legal heirs of the original owner, namely, Amar Nath could not have been impleaded as party respondents in the claim petition during his lifetime, inasmuch as, for the reason that the claim petition came to be decided by the Tribunal on 15.12.2014 and the above-named actual owner of the offending vehicle, namely, Amar Nath died on 01.01.2015. The ground supra, thus, cannot be either entertained or accepted. 13. Insofar as ground 6 supra urged in the memo of appeal that assuming that the deceased had died on account of the alleged accident and the proceedings were held by the Tribunal in ex-parte, yet it was obligatory upon the Tribunal to have enquired into the matter insofar as the benefits drawn by the claimants/respondents 1 to 7 herein are concerned, coupled with the fact that the widow of the deceased had been provided a compassionate appointment and have had, as such, to take notice of same while computing the compensation awarded to the claimants/respondents 1 to 7 herein. The instant ground essentially is repetition of the earlier ground which stands already dealt with in light of the judgment of the Apex Court supra. The instant ground, thus, as well is not sustainable. 14. The instant ground essentially is repetition of the earlier ground which stands already dealt with in light of the judgment of the Apex Court supra. The instant ground, thus, as well is not sustainable. 14. The ground 7 supra that the deceased owner of the offending vehicle was arrayed as respondent only on 05.04.2013 and, as such, the interest part of the award ought to have been imposed from the date of his impleadment and not from the date of filing of the claim petition, is concerned, the said ground runs in conflict with the preceding grounds urged in the memo of appeal, as in the said grounds the appellants have denied the happening of the accident as also the sustaining of the injuries by the deceased in the said accident on one hand and on the other in the instant ground have joined an issue qua the interest part of the award as the grounds urged in the memo of appeal have not been urged in the alternative or without prejudice each other. The appellants ex-facie have blown hot and cold in the grounds urged in the memo of appeal, while in some of the grounds have denied the happening of accident, sustaining of injuries by the deceased therein and his consequent death and in some grounds like the present one joined an issue on the quantum of interest awarded by the Tribunal though essentially, admitting the happening of the accident and death of the deceased therein. 15. Insofar as last ground 8 supra urged in the memo of appeal is concerned, wherein it is stated that the tractor in question was regularly being insured by the State Bank of India for securing its loan made towards it and that because of its negligence the said tractor was not insured upto 27.08.2010 i.e. the date of the accident and that the Bank infact had insured the said tractor on 13.12.2010, as such, there has been negligence on the part of the Bank in the matter for which the appellants herein/legal heirs of the deceased owner of the tractor are being punished for none of their faults. The instant ground urged by the appellants herein is of no consequence having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in that, indisputably on the date of happening of the accident i.e. 12.12.2010 the offending vehicle was not insured, thus, making the actual owner of the offending vehicle liable in the matter. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the Bank in question was supposed to insure the offending vehicle itself being hypothecated to it and that the Bank had been negligent in not insuring the offending vehicle, yet the plea of negligence by the Bank as is raised in the instant ground, cannot be urged by the appellants herein in the instant appeal. 16. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the only inescapable conclusion that could be drawn in the instant appeal is that the Tribunal has not committed any kind of perversity or illegality in passing the impugned award and has rightly, validly and legally passed a fair and just award impugned in the instant appeal. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. 17. The award amount, if any, lying with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udhampur in terms of order dated 10.08.2016 is directed to be released in favour of the claimants/respondents 1 to 7 herein along with interest, if any, accrued thereon subject to their proper verification and identification.