Kumar, J

This is claimant's appeal against the order of dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal.

2. For the purpose of convenience, parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original proceedings.

3. Claimants are the parents of one Ravindra @ Ravi who was working as Assistant Engineer in APMC, Sub-division Bijapur and earning Rs.9,000/- P.M. On 26.6.2001, when he was riding his Hero Honda motor cycle bearing No.KA-29/H-6217 on Bagalkot - Navanagar road at 12.10 A.M. i.e. at midnight, he met with an accident. The case of the claimants is that one mini goods lorry bearing No.KA-28/5177 came from the opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. Due to the impact, said Ravindra fell on the ground and sustained multiple fractures on his head and became unconscious. Mobile police who were on duty found his body, informed his family, and shifted him to Bagalkot hospital. From there, he was moved to Shivakrupa Hospital, Hubli, for further treatment. Unfortunately, two days thereafter, i.e. on 28.6.2001 at 4.30 PM., he died in the hospital while undergoing treatment. Appellants/claimants contended that they spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical treatment and thus sought compensation for the death of their son.

4. The 1st respondent-owner of the lorry has filed statement admitting the accident and contended that his vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent and therefore if at all any compensation is payable, it is the 2nd respondent who is liable to pay the amount.

5. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company filed detailed written statement contending that deceased Ravindra got himself injured due to skid of the motor cycle while riding in an intoxicated state. The insured vehicle was never involved in the accident. Claimants have filed false private complaint in No.135/0 1 on 31.8.2001 in the Court of JMFC, Bijapur falsely involving the vehicle bearing No.KA-28/5177 in order to make unlawful gain from it. The matter was got investigated through one Shambu Alagundagi, investigator who has submitted his report, which discloses the aforesaid facts. Therefore they sought dismissal of the petition.

6. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

1) Whether the petitioners prove that Ravindra @ Ravi s/o Veerappa Kolhar died in the accident that occurred on 26.6.2001 at about 12.10 A.M. on Bagalkot-Navanagar road in Bagalkot, was due to rash and negligent driving of mini goods lorry bearing No.KA-28/ 5177 by its driver?

2) Whether the 2nd respondent proves that deceased Ravindra was careless, rash and negligent in driving his motor cycle and dashed the same to the truck?

3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation?

If so, what is the quantum and from which respondent?

4) What order or award?

7. The 1st claimant was examined as PW1 and he examined another witness as PW2 and produced 31 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P31. The insurance company examined the investigator as RWI and his report. was marked as EX.R1. They produced 5 documents marked as Exs.R2 to R6.

8. The Trial Court on appreciation of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the claimants have failed to prove that their son, Ravindra died in an accident that occurred on 26.6.2001 at 12.10 A.M. on Bagalkot-Navanagar road due to rash and negligent driving of mini goods lorry bearing No.KA-28/ 5177 by its driver. The 2nd respondent has proved that the insured vehicle was not involved in the accident and therefore, the claim petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants are before this Court.

9. Learned Counsel for the claimants assailing the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal, contended that, when once the owner of the vehicle admitted the accident and the vehicle was insured, the Tribunal committed a serious error in not acting on the aforesaid admission and in dismissing the claim petition. He further submitted that the evidence ofPW2 coupled