1. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company-respondent No. 3 challenging the judgment and award passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 588 of 1999 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad on 12th February, 2004.

2. Present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are original claimants. They had contended that deceased Avinash was their son. He along with his friends had gone for regular jogging at about 6.00 a.m. on 17th August, 1999. When they were near Killarikar dispensary at Paithan on Uddhan Jaikwadi Dam road, a tempo trax bearing No. MH-20/A-7904 driven by original respondent No. 1 and owned by respondent No. 2 came in high speed. The dash was given by tempo trax to Avinash from back side. Avinash as well as his friend Amit Jadhav sustained multiple compound injuries. They both were admitted to Government Medical College Hospital at Aurangabad and then shifted to Kamal Nayan Bajaj Hospital, Aurangabad. However, on the same day, Avinash succumbed to his injuries. It was contended that said accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of tempo trax. The tempo trax was insured with original respondent No. 3 i.e. present appellant. It was also contended that Avinash was 20 years old. He had completed his first year of B.A. and has started Pan Shop near S.T. stand, Paithan. He was getting monthly income of Rs. 3000/-.

3. As the matter proceeded, name of respondent No. 1 who was said to be driver of the offending vehicle came to be deleted.

4. Respondent No. 2 filed written statement at Exhibit-22 and respondent No. 3 had also filed written statement at Exhibit-26. It was contended by respondent No. 2 that he is owner of offending vehicle, however, he denied that respondent No. 1 was his driver. One Bhagwan Kishanrao Dhakane, who was holding a valid driving licence, was employed by him as driver on his tempo trax. It was contended that Bhagwan Dhakane had parked tempo trax in the night on 16th August, 1998 and handed over the key to respondent No. 2. On the next day, at about 7.00 a.m. said Bhagwan Dhakane informed respondent No. 2 that the said vehicle is not at its place of parking. When respondent No. 2 made inquiry with the police, he came to know that respondent No. 1 who is a minor, had stolen the vehicle and because of his rash and negligent driving, the accident has been caused. He, therefore, claimed that he is not liable to pay compensation. The insurance company contended that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and therefore, there is breach of terms of policy conditions. Respondent No. 3 prays for exonerating it. The other contents of the claim petition were denied.

5. The issues were framed by the tribunal and then evidence has been led. After considering evidence, the tribunal has come to the conclusion that claimants had proved that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 1 and claimants are entitled to get compensation. The petition was partly allowed. It was held that the claimants are entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 1,44,500/- inclusive of ‘no fault liability’ from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 jointly and severally with proportionate costs. Present appellant – original respondent No. 3 is challenging the said award regarding its liability made joint several with respondent No. 2.

6. Heard Mr. Soman, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Patni, learned Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

7. It will not be out of place to mention here that the original claimants have not challenged the quantum that has been awarded and therefore, the scope of appeal is restricted to the fact that respondent No. 3 has been made liable jointly and severally with respondent No. 2. Therefore, taking into consideration the limited scope following point arise for my determination.

Whether appellant – respondent No. 3 is liable to pay comp