The jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal appointed under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act is restricted to entertaining claims and giving awards only against the insurers, owners and drivers of the vehicles involved in the accidents and not against any other person.

T. R. Handa, J.—This appeal under Section J10-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter called the Act) is directed against the judgment/award dated 7-7-1972 delivered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, dismissing the claim petition of the appellants made under Section 110-A of the Act.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal may be briefly sketched like this. On 28-8-1970 a truck bearing registration No. HIM 4135 was proceeding from Tatapani towards Simla. This truck was loaded with apple-boxes. Some of the apple-boxes loaded on this truck belonged to Shri Prabhu Dayal (now deceased) and he was also travelling in the truck. This truck belonged to the Himachal Government Transport and at the relevant time was being driven by one Gian Singh, an employee of the Himachal Qovt. Transport. When this truck reached near the place known as Ganasidhar, it fell down into a deep khud and was smashed. As a result of such accident, both, Shri Gian Singh, driver of the truck and the said Shri Prabhu Dayal died on the spot.

3. Shri Prabhu Dayal deceased was a young man of 39 years. He was a bachelor. He was survived only by his three brothers two of whom are the present appellants. The appellants then filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Act before the Claims Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation on account of the death of Shri Prabhu Dayal who, according to the appellants, was then having a monthly income of Rs. 1000. The contention of the appellants was that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of Himachal Government Transport, the respondent.

4. The claim petition of the appellants was resisted by the respondent. While admitting the factum of accident the respondent denied if the same had occurred on account of any negligence on the part of its driver. The respondent further disputed the correctness of the quantum of compensation as claimed in the petition and also challenged the locus standi of the appellants to claim the same.

5. On the pleas of the parties, the following issues were struck by the learned Tribunal.

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of respondent ?

2. To what compensation are the petitioners entitled to and against whom ?

3. Whether the petition for compensation by brothers of the deceased is not competent ?

4. Relief.

6. The learned Tribunal found that the accident could not be attributed to any negligent or rash act on the part of the truck driver. In the view of the Tribunal the cause of the accident was the sagging of a portion of the road which was projecting on wooden bailies and which wooden bailies gave way under the weight of the truck. The learned Tribunal further found that the appellants had locus standi to maintain the claim petition. In view of its findings on Issue No. 1, however, and without recording any findings on sue No. 2, the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeallants petition.

7. The case of the appellants as pleaded in the claim petition was that the vehicle had fallen in the khud due to the negligence of the Himachal Government Transport. The main question for consideration which, therefore, arises in this appeal is whether the accident in question had occurred on account of any negligence on the part of the respondent or the truck driver. The only eye witness to this occurrence is RW-4 Shri Balak Ram who was deputed as conductor with the ill-fated truck and was travelling in that truck at the time of the accident in question. As per version of this witness, the truck was moving at a moderate speed of 15-16 K. M. per hour at the time of the accident. His further version was that as the truck was passing through a narrow site, the rear wheel of the truck stepped on the dunga as a result of which the vehicle titled and fell down in the khud. The dunga, according to the witness, was on the khud side. He further stated that on that portion of the road the wooden bailies were also broken. Thus, according to the v