Harsha Devani, J.

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") at the instance of the Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 15th March, 2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Vadodara in M.A.C. Petition No. 2360 of 1997. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 through their guardian and next friend Dipak Kanjibhai Patel, who is their maternal uncle, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 against the appellant and the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 herein for the death of deceased Neetaben Vajubhai Umrethiya. It was the case of the claimants that Neetaben, mother of the claimants, was going on a Hero Honda motorcycle as a pillion rider on 16th November, 1997 at about 8.00 p.m. and the original opponent No. 1, namely, the respondent No. 3 herein was driving his Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No. GJ-11-F-7825 with full speed and in a rash and negligent manner on the road near Laxmi Petrol Pump. He suddenly applied the brakes for taking a turn to fill petrol without giving any side signal and, hence, there was an accident with the Fiat which was coming from behind, due to which their mother sustained grievous, injuries and died while undergoing treatment. The claimants claimed total compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 under different heads. However, since the quantum of compensation is not subject matter of challenge in this appeal, it is not necessary to refer to the same in detail.

2. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, was of the view that the respondent No. 3 was mainly responsible for the accident due to which, the deceased had sustained severe injuries and died. On the question of liability, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the opponent No. 1-driver of Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No. GJ-11-F-7825 (the respondent No. 3 herein) and, therefore, he was primarily liable to pay the compensation. The said vehicle belonged to the opponent No. 2-Jerambhai Ranchhodbhai Umrethiya (the respondent No. 4 herein), who was vicariously liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. The vehicle being insured with the opponent No. 3, that is, the appellant herein for the period from 23rd July, 1997 to 22nd July, 1998, the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the insured. The Tribunal, accordingly, held the opponent Nos. 1 to 3, namely, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the appellant herein, to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants with interest and costs. Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company is in appeal.

3. Mr. V.P. Nanavati, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the question that arises for consideration is whether once it is found that the driver of the offending vehicle was solely negligent for the death of the deceased, who was his wife, whether the claimants would be entitled to claim compensation, the driver being the tortfeasor. It was argued that a tortfeasor cannot take advantage of his own wrong and as such, the claim petition ought to have been rejected on this ground alone. It was submitted that if the driver (who is also the father of the claimants) was solely responsible for the tortuous act, due to which the deceased expired, the claimants are not entitled to receive any compensation. The other contention raised by the learned Counsel was that the motorcycle was lying on the edge of the road and the Fiat was also found on the edge of the road; the road on which the accident occurred was considerable wide, viz. 22 feet and that the driver of the fiat should have maintained sufficient distance from the vehicle which was going ahead so as to prevent any mishap. It was submitted that there is no evidence that the driver of the Fiat was also going to fill petrol at the pump, nor is any hotel or lodge is si