Arun Bhansali, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 16/4/2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal has rejected the application for compensation filed by the appellant-claimants.

2. The application for compensation was filed by the claimants inter alia with the averments that husband/father of claimants, Lekh Ram, was travelling in Car No. RJ-07-C-6853 from Bijarnia to Loonkaransar and the Car was being driven by Devi Lal; when the Car reached towards Loonkaransar, a blue bull (uhy xk;) crossed the road and in an attempt to save the said bull, the driver Devi Lal could not keep control over the vehicle and the same turned turtle, resulting in death of Lekh Ram. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 45,10,000/- along with interest.

3. On behalf of respondent no. 2, Devi Lal, no reply was filed. Respondent no. 1-owner of the vehicle, filed her written statement and submitted that the accident occurred on account of sudden events taking place and denied her liability. It was indicated that the amount claimed was excessive and that the Insurance Company was liable for making payment of compensation.

4. The non-claimant Insurance Company filed its reply and denied the contents of the application. It was submitted that the averments made were incorrect as in the FIR it was specifically indicated that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle, the non-claimants owner and alleged driver were in collusion and a false claim has been lodged and after lodging the FIR, with malafide intention, Devi Lal has been shown as driver. The deceased was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and for his own negligence, the claimants are not entitled to claim any compensation, the driver was not in possession of a valid driving licence and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable for making payment of compensation.

5. The Tribunal framed five issues. On behalf of the claimants, AW.1-Vinod, AW.2-Rami and AW.3-Ramesh were examined and documents Ex.1 to 13 were exhibited. On behalf of the Insurance Company NAW.1- Arjun Lal Yadav appeared in the witness box and exhibited documents from NA-1 to NA-4. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal noticed that AW.2-Rami exhibited documents Ex.1 to Ex.10 and claimed that the accident occurred while the deceased was travelling with Devi Lal in the Car and in the cross examination she indicated that her husband Lekh Ram did not know driving, Devi Lal is her brother-in-law and visits her house; AW.3- Ramesh gave statement about the income of the deceased and AW.1-Vinod gave statement pertaining to the accident and denied that he gave statement NA.1 and claimed that he was not interrogated by the police.

6. The Tribunal based on the contents of the FIR Ex.2, wherein, Devi Lal specifically indicated that they were travelling from National Highway No. 15 to Loonkaransar and the vehicle was being driven by his uncle Lekh Ram and for controverting the said evidence no documentary evidence regarding the vehicle being driven by Devi Lal was produced, though the police came to the conclusion that the vehicle was being driven by Devi Lal, however, no supportive document was produced; there was no independent witness supporting the statement of AW.1-Vinod and came to the conclusion that the vehicle was being driven by deceased Lekh Ram himself. In view of the fact that the accident occurred in which the deceased himself was driving the vehicle and the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the application for compensation was dismissed by the Tribunal.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the claimants merely based on the police documents and by ignoring the oral evidence along with the FR which was filed by police pertaining to the accident and, therefore, the judgment impugned des