C.Praveen Kumar, J.

Aggrieved by the award and decree dated 17.06.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.125 of 2011 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, wherein the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the claimants, the present appeal is filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in M.V.O.P.

3. The facts in issue are as under:

The appellants herein are the claimants. The first claimant is the wife and claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the two minor daughters while claimant No.4 is the father of one P.Ganesh Reddy (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). A claim-petition under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 36,00,000/-, came to be filed stating that on 18.10.2010 at about 5.30 p.m., while the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration No. AP 28 BD 4622 slowly on the extreme left side of the road from JNTU towards Hitech City and when he reached near RTO Office, 4th phase, KPHB Colony, the driver of an auto bearing registration No. AP 28 TB 3035, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, came in opposite direction on a wrong side and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately thereafter, he was shifted to Remedy Hospital and from there to NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, where he succumbed to injuries on 19.10.2010. The motor cycle of the deceased was also damaged. In respect of the said incident, a case in Crime No.424 of 2010 came to be registered against the driver of the said auto, for an offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. Having regard to the age of the deceased; his employment as Area Sales Manager in Neon Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad and earning at Rs. 30,000/- per month besides other perks, the claimants sought compensation of Rs. 36,00,000/- against the respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the auto, respectively.

4. In spite of service of notice on the 1st respondent, there was no representation. Hence, he was set exparte.

5. A counter came to be filed by the 2nd respondent, disputing the manner in which the accident took place. It is stated that the accident occurred due to negligence of the rider of the motor cycle i.e., deceased and as such the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in death of the deceased viz., P.Ganesh Reddy due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle (Auto) bearing No.AP 28 TB 3035 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

7. In support of their case, the claimants examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9 and Exs.X1 and X2. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents but Ex.B1-a copy of insurance policy came to be marked with consent.

8. Basing on the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the claimants failed to prove that the auto bearing No. AP 28 TB 3035 was involved in the accident. While deciding the issue as to the amount of compensation to which the claimants are entitled, it was held that a sum of Rs. 26,45,984/- can be granted towards compensation. In view of the findings with regard to the manner in which the accident took place, the Tribunal held that the claimants are not entitled to claim any compensation against the respondents. Challenging the same, the claimants preferred the present appeal.

9. Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the claimants mainly submits that the finding of the Tribunal in holding that the claimants have not proved their case beyond doubt is incorrect. According t