N.K.MODY, J. - (1.)BEING aggrieved by the award dated 18.5.2010 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in the Claim Case No. 65 of 2009 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was allowed and compensation of Rs. 5,88,860 was awarded and insurance company, respondent No. 3, was exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation, the present appeal has been filed.
(2.)SHORT facts of the case are that the appellants have filed the claim petition alleging that on 27.7.2009 the deceased Ambaram was going on a motorbike along with Om Prakash towards Depalpur. At that time offending Minidoor which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3, hit the motorbike of the deceased as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries and passed away. It was prayed that the claim petition be allowed and compensation be awarded. Claim petition was contested by the respondent No. 3 on various grounds including on the ground that respondent No. 1 was not possessing a valid driving licence. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,88,860 as compensation and exonerated respondent No. 3, insurance company, against which present appeal has been filed.
Learned counsel for the appellants argued at length and submits that deceased was aged 44 years and was working as Secretary, Gram Panchayat and his salary was Rs. 4,346. Since the deceased was in job right from 1995, therefore, future prospects ought to have been taken into consideration. It is submitted that amount awarded be enhanced. It is submitted that since the deceased was third party, therefore learned Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the respondent No. 3. It is submitted that appeal be allowed, amount be enhanced and findings whereby respondent No. 3 was exonerated be set aside.

(3.)MR . R.J. Pandit, learned counsel, submits that the salary assessed by the learned Tribunal was just and proper. It is submitted that since the offending vehicle was driven in violation of the terms of policy, therefore the respondent No. 3 was rightly exonerated. It is submitted that appeal filed by the appellants has no merits and the same be dismissed.