1] In the Claim Petition No.575 of 2002 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nagpur has passed an award on 27.03.2003, in favour of the dependents of the deceased namely Nazir Beg, for a compensation of Rs.3,25,150/with 9% interest from the date of filing of the petition and further at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of award till its realization, for failure to deposit the amount within a period of 45 days. The owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company both are held liable jointly and severally, to pay the amount of compensation. The Tribunal has held that the deceased was working as a driver on the vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo bearing registration No.MH-31-H-5869 owned by the respondent No.2 and he died on 06.12.1997, as a result of the vehicle turning turtle. The Tribunal has held that the dependents of the deceased are entitled for compensation even though the deceased died because of his own negligence resulting in occurring of an accident. This appeal is by the Insurance Company only and not by the owner of the vehicle.

2] Shri Kukday, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – insurance company has urged that the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, at the instance of the dependents of the deceased driver of the insured vehicle dying because of his own rash and negligent driving, is not covered. He further submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the deceased was employed as a driver by the respondent No.3, the owner of the vehicle in question i.e. Tata Sumo bearing registration No.MH-31-H-5869. He further submits that the deceased was a friend of the son of the respondent No.3 and his risk was not covered by the policy in question relied upon by the claimants. He further submits that there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was a paid driver and was getting monthly salary of Rs.2000/- as has been fixed by the Tribunal. He has further urged that the Tribunal has committed an error in granting penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till its realization upon failure of the appellant to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of 45 days from the date of judgment.

3. None appears for the respondents and on the basis of the submissions made the following points fall for the determination in this matter:

Sr. No.	Points	Findings
1.	Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the deceased Nazir Beg was employed by the respondent No.3 the owner of the vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo bearing registration No.MH-31-H-5869?	Yes
2.	Whether the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the deceased was getting monthly salary of Rs.2000/?	Yes
3	Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the claim petition under Section 166 at the instance of the dependents of the deceased was maintainable for compensation on account of death of the deceased caused due to his own rash and negligent driving?	No
4.	Whether the Tribunal committed an error in awarding penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization, upon failure to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of 45 days from the date of judgment?	Does not survive, in view of findings on earlier point

4] As to point Nos. [i] and [ii]: The burden of proof to establish the fact of employment of the deceased with the respondent No.3 on monthly salary of Rs.2000/- lies upon the claimants. The claimants have specifically averred in paragraph 22 of the claim petition that on 06.12.1997 at about 12:00 p.m. (which is the date and time of the accident). The deceased was in the employment of the owner of the vehicle to ply the said Tata Sumo bearing regist