( 1 ) THE present appeal is filed by the appellants who are the original opponents Nos. 1 and 3 in as much as the Motor Accident claims Tribunal-3 (Main) Ahmedabad held them liable to pay to the original petitioners a sum of Rs, 55,000-00 with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from 27/03/1980 till the payment and for depositing the said amount of award within eight weeks and that the petition against original opponent No. 4, namely. United India Assurance Co. who was the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident was dismissed with no order as to costs. The aforesaid award and order is passed by the motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 31/03/1982 in Motor Accident claims Petition No. 154 of 1980.

( 2 ) SHORT facts of the appeal can be stated as under : the appellant No. 1 herein was the original opponent No. 1 and was the driver of the vehicle involved in accident while the appellant No. 2 herein and the original opponent No. 3 is the owner of the said vehicle bearing no. GRS 5811. Original opponent No. 4 who is respondent No. 7 herein was the insurer of the said motor vehicle. On 5/11/1979 when one rajoji the husband of the original petitioner No. 1 Ranguba - widow of Rajpuji pabaji Vihol was plying his cycle slowly, correctly and on the right side of chamunda Road, original opponent No. 1 negligently driving the aforesaid vehicle of original opponent No. 3 from the opposite direction collided with the cycle of Rajpuji as a result of which, Rajuji fell down and sustained injuries and eventually, he died. Hence the legal representatives of the deceasedoriginal petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 filed the aforesaid Claim Petition for compensation of Rs. 70,000. 00 but subsequently during the pendency of the petition, by filing purshis at Ex. 34, they reduced their claim to Rs. 55,000. 00 only. Here, it may be mentioned that opponent No. 2 has been deleted pending the petition by filing purshis at Ex. 64. The original opponent no. 1-driver of the vehicle involved in the accident filed his written statement at Ex. 37 while original opponent No. 3-owner of the vehicle involved in the accident adopted the written statement filed by opponent No. 1 vide purshis at Ex. 65. The Insurance Co. that is original opponent No. 4 has filed his written statement at Ex. 36. 2a. The original opponent No. 1 has admitted in his written statement that the motor vehicle GRS 5811 was driven by him and that it is of the ownership of opponent No. 3. He denied that the said vehicle was involved in the alleged accident. The original opponent No. 3 has adopted the written statement filed by opponent No. 1 that is to say, he has admitted the ownership of the vehicle involved in the accident and that the opponent no. 1 was driving his vehicle and that opponent No. 1 was his driver. The Insurance Company that is original opponent No. 4 and respondent No. 7 herein has filed written statement at Ex. 36 wherein inter alia, it was denied that the vehicle involved in accident was driven by opponent No. 1 and/or any one else who was authorised to drive the same and that the said driver had valid licence to drive the same. In view of the aforesaid written statement, necessary issues were framed by the Tribunal at Ex. 29. It may be noted that the original opponents Nos. 1 and 3 who are the appellants herein have not led any oral evidence before the Tribunal.

( 3 ) AFTER carefully examining the evidence on record, the Tribunal has held (hat on 5/11/1979, collision took place between motor vehicle bearing no. GRS 5811 and the bicycle of Rajuji on account of negligence on the part of the driver of the said motor vehicle bearing No. GRS 5811 and not on account of cyclist Rajuji. It was also negatived that it was on account of negligence of both the driver of the motor vehicle and the cyclist Rajuji. The issue on the point of injury sustained by Rajuji on account of the accident and that consequently he died was also answered in the affirmative, in f