S.K.JHA, J.

1. This is an appeal under S.110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patna, dismissing the application for compensation of the appellant. The appellant had preferred a claim under S.110-A of the Act for the award of compensation to the tune of 1,00,000 on account of the death of his son Dharamdeo Prasad aged about 19 years caused by the impact of a tempo (taxi) bearing registration No. BRP 7809. The aforesaid accident took place at about 7 p.m. on the 27th Feb., 1968 near the State Police Radio Headquarters within Gardanibagh Police Station in the town of Patna.

2. The appellants case was that while his son Dharamdeo Prasad was coming on a bicycle from the side of aerodrome towards his residential place in mohalla Laljitola, the above mentioned tempo owned by Anil Kumar Gupta, respondent No. 1, and insured with the Insurance Company, respondent No. 2, dashed against him causing injuries. He was removed to the Rajendra Surgical Block of the Patna Medical College, for treatment but he died there. It was further claimed that a sum of Rs. 500 had been spent over the treatment of the deceased son of the appellant during the period of five hours between the time of the occurrence and his death. The further case of the appellant was that the deceased was a student in the local B.N. College and was also earning a sum of Rs. 200 per month from part-time jobs. The appellant had filed the application for compensation as being the legal representative of the deceased.

3. Separate objection petitions were filed by each of the two respondents, namely, the owner of the tempo in question and the insurer. Respondent No. 1 challenged the maintainability of the claim case and contended that the same was barred by limitation and further that the appellant had no cause of action as he was neither the legal representative of the deceased nor any relation of his. The further case of the owner, respondent No. 1, was that the tempo in question was never involved in the alleged accident. It was, as a matter of fact, lying for repairs in the New Janta Electric Works between the 14th Feb., 1968 and the 1st of March 1968. It was further alleged that the deceased himself was guilty of double riding on the bicycle and so, if he sustained any injury resulting in his death, it was due to his own negligence and illegal double loading. The claim was alleged to be highly exaggerated and false-merely to extort money.

3A. Respondent No. 2, the insurer, in its objection put forth a plea that the mother of the deceased, who was his sole heir and legal representative, was still alive and that the appellant had no right to claim any compensation on account of the death of his son. The Insurance Company also denied its knowledge regarding the earning of Rs. 200 a month by the deceased by doing any part-time job on the date of the alleged accident. It was admitted that the vehicle (tempo in question) was insured with it and that respondent No. 1, Anil Kumar Gupta, was its owner. But it was denied that the tempo in question was ever involved in the alleged accident. Like respondent No. 1, respondent No. 2 also came forward with a plea that the tempo in question was not on the road on the alleged date of accident since if remained inside the garage as its owner was busy in connection with the marriage ceremony of his brother. Liability was disowned in respect of the alleged accident.

4. The Tribunal framed the following five issues :

"1. Is the claim petition maintainable ?

2. Is the claim barred by limitation ?

3. Has the applicant right to sue as the legal representative of the deceased Dharamdeo Pd. ?

5. Did the accident occur by impact of rash and negligent driving of the tempo bearing No. BRP 7809 ?

6. Is the applicant entitled to any relief as claimed by him and if so to what relief and against whom ?"

5. With regard to issue No. 2 it was held that the ap