JUDGMENT :

Hemant Chandangoudar, J.

1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation against the judgment dated 28.07.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Tirumakudalu Narasipura in MVC No. 407/2016

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 12.01.2015, the deceased Suresh who was traveling in a car bearing registration No. KA-55-M-3474 along with his inmates which was driven by its driver Shreyas dashed against the lorry bearing Registration No. TN-34-B-4204, which was parked in the middle of the road without any sign and signal. As a result of the aforesaid accident, Suresh sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

3. The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 163A of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of accident and was an agriculturist and earning a sum of Rs. 40,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that accident took place solely on account of negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry who had parked the said lorry in the middle of the road without any sign and signal. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 16,00,000/- along with interest.

4. The first respondent No. 1 remained absent and was placed ex-parte. The insurance company respondent No. 2 filed written statement, in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. It was also pleaded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Car who hit the front portion of the parked vehicle on the left side of the road. A complaint was lodged by the driver of the lorry and a case came to be registered against the driver of the Car namely Shreyas for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of I.P.C. The abated charge sheet was filed against the accused for the said offences. It was pleaded that the claim of the claimants is exorbitant and excessive.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No. 1 examined herself as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex. P1 to Ex. P6. On behalf of respondents the Administrative Officer of respondent No. 2 examined himself as R.W. 1 and did not choose to produce any documentary evidence.

6. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the Car by its driver, as a result of aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. It was further held, that claimants had not proved the negligent act of the driver of the lorry who had parked the said lorry in the middle of the road without any signal. It was held that the claimants not having made the owner and insurer of the Car as parties to the claim petition, the claim petition is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed seeking the amount of compensation.

7. Learned Counsel for the claimant submitted that the impugned judgment is contrary to the provisions of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act which provides for payment of compensation for the death or injuries suffered in the motor vehicles accident. He further submitted that in a claim petition filed under 163A, the question of negligence cannot be gone into and the compensation has to be awarded on the basis of no fault liability. Hence, he submits that the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal requires to be set aside and the claim petition be allowed.

8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Insurance company submits that the owner and the insurer of the Car was not made a party and on this ground the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. He further submits that the accident occurred sole