1. Heard Sri A. Rajasekar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri G.S. Prakash Rao, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/Insurance Company.

2. This appeal arises out of the order dated 18.12.2002 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar in O.P.No.188 of 1998.

3. The briefly stated facts of the case under appeal are these: Bodige Anjaneyulu, hereinafter called ‘the deceased’ worked as welder in KTK1 and 1-A incline of S.C.C. Ltd., in Bhupalapalli Mines and was getting wages of Rs.4,400/- per month. He was aged 33 years on the date of accident. On 01.02.1997 he was returning on Bajaj Kawasaki motorcycle bearing No. AP 36 C 7251 along with one Sanjeeva Rao. He was riding the motorcycle and Sanjeeva Rao was sitting on the pillion seat. They were returning from Chelpur to Bhupalapally. While they were on the way, the lorry bearing No. APK 7039 driven in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the motorcycle, as a result, the deceased and the pillion rider fell down and received severe injuries. The deceased died instantaneously, whereas the pillion rider survived. On the report lodged by the pillion rider, the police registered a case in Crime No.4 of 1997 under Section 304-A and 337 IPC.

4. The appellants, who are the widow, minor children and the parents of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal below seeking compensation of Rs.5,77,820/- under various heads.

5. On receiving summons from the Tribunal below, the respondents 1 to 3 appeared before the Tribunal and filed separate counters. The respondents 1 and 2 contended in their counter that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. APK 7039 and that the lorry was insured with the third respondent at material time of accident under valid policy from 09.11.1996 to 08.11.1997 and if at all there is any liability, the same has to be fastened on the third respondent/insurance company The third respondent/insurance company also contended in its counter that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the first respondent and the claimants have to establish that the deceased himself was not negligent at the time of accident and held valid driving licence and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. APK 7039. The age, avocation, and income of the deceased etc. are denied. In the alternative it was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both the drivers or negligence of any one, so the owner and insurer of the motorcycle are necessary parties to the claim petition.

6. In the course of enquiry before the learned Tribunal, PWs.1 to 4 were examined on behalf of the claimants and Exs.A.1 to A8 were marked. The salary certificate was marked as Ex.X.1 through PW.4, an employee in the Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. The respondents did not choose to examine any witness on their behalf. The third respondent, however, marked the copy of the policy of insurance as Ex.B.1 which shows that the offending vehicle was insured under a valid policy with the third respondent/insurance company on the date of accident.

7. PWs.2 and 3 are the witnesses examined by the claimants to prove that the accident occurred due to rash an negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. APK 7039. Admittedly, in this case, B. Sanjeeva Rao, the pillion rider, who lodged the first information report, did not furnish the number of the offending lorry to the police. Therefore, the first information report does not contain the number of the lorry which was involved in the accident. The police who conducted the investigation could be able to trace out the lorry involved in the accident during the course of their investigation and filed charge sheet ten months after registering the first in