JUDGMENT : RENUKA YARA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and Mr. D. Madhusudhan, learned counsel for respondent/claimant. Perused the record. 2. This M.A.C.M.A is preferred aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 25.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.533 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, wherein, in a claim petition filed by respondent No.1, compensation of Rs.11,50,000/- was awarded with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by the appellant/Insurance Company and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 jointly and severally. 3. The deceased K. Nageshwar Rao met with an accident on 16.02.2016 at 6.10 a.m., when the deceased was going from Ashok Nagar, BHEL on his motorcycle bearing number AP 23K 5180 to Vattinagulapally at Gopanapally Tanda. When the motorcycle was proceeding, the driver of lorry bearing number AP 28 T 2925 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner in high speed dashed the motorcycle of the deceased causing grievous injuries and instantaneous death. In that regard, the Police, Gachibowli have registered a case in Crime No.65 of 2016 and thereafter, filed charge sheet against the driver of lorry bearing number AP 28T 2925 under Section 304-A of IPC. The respondent No.1, who is the wife of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum. 4. The appellant herein, who is respondent No.2 in the claim petition opposed the claim denying liability to pay the compensation on account of non-existence of an insurance policy to the crime vehicle i.e. lorry bearing No. AP 28 T 2925. 5. The Tribunal, upon considering the oral evidence of respondent No.1 as well as the appellant herein, awarded compensation of Rs.11,50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum mulcting liability jointly and severally on the appellant and the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Aggrieved by the same, the present M.A.C.M.A is preferred. 6. In grounds of appeal, the appellant raised issue of the deceased not wearing a helmet in violation of Section 129 of M.V.Act and said factor contributing to the death. It is pleaded that contributory negligence of the deceased ought to have been considered on account of violation of the concerned conditions of M.V.Act. 6. In grounds of appeal, the appellant raised issue of the deceased not wearing a helmet in violation of Section 129 of M.V.Act and said factor contributing to the death. It is pleaded that contributory negligence of the deceased ought to have been considered on account of violation of the concerned conditions of M.V.Act. Further, defence is taken that there are two vehicles involved in the accident i.e., the motorcycle which was used by the deceased and the lorry which has struck the motorcycle and therefore it is pleaded that the insurer and insured of the motorcycle are proper and necessary parties to the claim petition. According to the appellant, they have proven that the policy was not in force by the time of accident and said fact is proven by examining RW1. However, the owner of one vehicle is made responsible for payment of the total compensation. It is emphasized that there is no insurance contract between the appellant and owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. Further it is stated that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month on the premise that he was running a canteen at Engineering College and another at Women's Hostel merely on the basis of Exs.A13 and A14 Trade licenses. When it is perfectly possible that in spite of having trade licenses, the deceased might not have carried on canteen business. It is pleaded that evidence has to be led to prove that the deceased was running canteens and in the absence of the same, considering income of the deceased on the basis of canteen business is erroneous. The appellant pleaded that the evidence of RW1 is not appreciated and therefore, the appellant is erroneously made liable though there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. 7. The learned counsel for appellant submitted that there was no insurance policy issued by it to cover the third party risk for the crime vehicle i.e. lorry bearing number AP 28 T 2925 and therefore, the liability cannot be fixed on it to pay compensation. 8. 7. The learned counsel for appellant submitted that there was no insurance policy issued by it to cover the third party risk for the crime vehicle i.e. lorry bearing number AP 28 T 2925 and therefore, the liability cannot be fixed on it to pay compensation. 8. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued that the issue of liability was considered by the Tribunal and a finding is given to the effect that the appellant herein failed to prove that no insurance policy was in existence as on the date of accident for the crime vehicle and therefore, awarded compensation which is payable jointly and severally by the tortfeasors consisting of the driver, owner and the insurer. 9. When the grounds of appeal are considered, firstly there is a ground taken about the deceased not wearing a helmet and the same causing or contributing for his death in the accident. When this issue is considered, it is seen that there is no evidence led about the deceased not wearing a helmet and same being a contributory factor for his death in the accident. Further, the charge sheet also does not seem to contain anything about the deceased not wearing a helmet and therefore, said factor causing or contributing for his death when the accident took place. Therefore, this ground cannot be considered for exonerating the Insurance Company from paying compensation to respondent No.1. 10. The next ground taken challenging the award passed by the Tribunal is that there are two vehicles involved in the accident i.e., a motorcycle and a lorry. The owner and insurer of the lorry are made parties to the claim petition but the owner and Insurer of the motorcycle are not made as parties to the claim petition though they are proper and necessary parties. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the police have filed charge sheet against the driver of the lorry holding him responsible for causing the accident with rash and negligent driving. Such being the case, it is only proper to infer that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased rider of the motorcycle and therefore, there was no need for arraying the owner and insurer of the motorcycle as parties to the claim petition. 11. Further, as per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Khenyei v. New India Insurance Co. 11. Further, as per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Khenyei v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd , (2015) 9 SCC 273 ., in a case of composite negligence, the claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several. In the instant case, even in case any negligence can be found on the part of the deceased, the third parties i.e. family members of the deceased had right to proceed against the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle alone. As such, this ground also is not of aid to the appellant. 12. Further, an objection is taken that there is no insurance contract between the appellant and owner of the crime vehicle i.e. there is no privity of contract between the appellant and the owner of the crime vehicle and therefore no liability can be fixed on the appellant for payment of compensation. In this connection, when the evidence on record is examined, it is seen that the appellant herein has examined RW1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B3. Ex.B1 is Policy registration vide No.FPV/11293554/11/06/D1114AD which is a policy issued in favour of one Himanshu Gupta for a car. Ex.B2 is the Registration form of said policy and Ex.B3 is the Certificate of insurance policy. This issue is examined by the Tribunal and it is held that the insurance policy copy produced by the claimant for the crime vehicle is FPV/11293554/81/09C4754Z and not FPV/11293554/11/06/D1114AD. 13. On one hand, the insurance policy produced by the appellant under Ex.B1 was not pertaining to the crime vehicle and there is an admission by RW1 that no enquiry is made with respect to the policy No.FPV/11293554/81/09C4754Z. When there is no verification about the policy produced by the claimant and there is no evidence to prove that the policy produced by the claimant is not pertaining to the crime vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot seek exoneration. At a minimum, the appellant ought to have produced the details of the vehicle for which insurance policy was produced by the claimant, to prove that said policy is not issued for the crime vehicle i.e. lorry bearing No.AP 28 T 2925. At a minimum, the appellant ought to have produced the details of the vehicle for which insurance policy was produced by the claimant, to prove that said policy is not issued for the crime vehicle i.e. lorry bearing No.AP 28 T 2925. It is also a point to be noted that whenever there is a fatal accident, the crime vehicle is sent to an MVI Inspector for inspecting to ensure that mechanical defect is not a cause for the accident. Said MVI report contains the details of the insurance policy. The appellant herein ought to have perused the contents of the MVI report to make sure that there is no insurance policy issued by it for covering the risk of third party liability. In the absence of such evidence, mere assertions alone will not come to the aid of the appellant to deny liability. 14. The last ground taken by the appellant is about the income of the deceased as considered by the Tribunal on the basis of Ex.A13 and A14 Trade Licenses standing in the name of the deceased for running canteens at Engineering College and a Women's hostel. It is to be noted that the claimant actually claimed the monthly income from two canteens to be Rs.30,000/- whereas the Tribunal has taken an amount of Rs.15,000/- alone and the same by all means is a conservative estimate. In the absence of empirical proof about the actual income of the deceased, the Tribunal is expected to take notional value on the basis of circumstances of each case and in the present case due to existence of Exs.A13 and A14, the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.15,000/- and the same by any means cannot be said to be exorbitant. As such, this Court does not see any grounds to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. There are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 15. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.