BASANT, J.

1. Should negligence be proved invariably in all claims for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act? What is the quality of negligence to be proved and the extent of proof required? These questions arise for consideration in this appeal.

2. Insurer is the appellant. The insurer assails the award of the Tribunal directing payment of an amount of Rs.2,53,700/- to the claimant who is the mother of the deceased. The deceased was a passenger in a vehicle insured with the appellant. While the vehicle was being driven, it is alleged that the deceased made some movements inside the jeep. The door of the jeep opened and he was consequently thrown outside the jeep. This is the alleged incident.

3. The Tribunal even in the absence of any better evidence came to the conclusion that the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle are liable to compensate the claimants. No specific finding on the question of negligence was entered.

4. The insurer assails the impugned award on the short ground that the Tribunal erred in directing payment of amounts under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the absence of a specific finding about negligence on the part of t