JUDGMENT :

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.

1. In this appeal award dated 11.4.2012 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur at Nahan (hereinafter referred to as the MACT) in Petition No. 35- MAC/2 of 2007 titled Teja Singh and others vs. Parvinder Singh and others, has been assailed by claimants, for dismissal of their claim petition filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the MV Act) seeking compensation for a sum of Rs 4,87,000/- on account of death of Sanjay Kumar in an accident dated 18.2.2007, which took place near Kalesar Police Station Khijrabad, District Yamunanagar (Haryana).

2. Appellants/claimants Nos. 1 and 2 are parents, whereas appellants/claimants No. 3 and 4 are sister and brother of deceased Sanjay Kumar. Respective age of appellants/claimants, on the date of filing of claim petition, was 47, 45, 16 and 13 years. Age of deceased, as disclosed by PW2 Teja Singh and PW3 Kirat Singh, which is not disputed and as also mentioned in postmortem report, was 20 years on the day of accident.

3. Claim of appellants is that on 18.2.2007 deceased Sanjay Kumar, who was earning his livelihood and serving his parents, sister and brother by doing private labour work, was going to Delhi in Maruti Car No. HP-01N- 0126 (old temporary No. UP-BAT-8941) owned by respondent No.1 Parvinder Singh along with Jugal Kishore (respondent No.2) driver of car and at 4.30 AM when car reached at village Kalesar, it collided with truck No. HR-37A- 0093 left on road after an accident taken place earlier with said truck on 16.2.2007, causing head injury to Sanjay Kumar and minor injuries to Jugal Kishore and while both of them were being taken to hospital, Sanjay Kumar succumbed to his injuries.

4. According to claimants, PW3 Kirat Singh, uncle of deceased Sanjay, at the same time, was going towards Yamunanagar along with his uncle Duggal Singh on motorcycle and he had witnessed the accident when it occurred after overtaking of their motorcycle by the car and he had rescued and removed the injured from the spot in another truck to the hospital at Paonta Sahib and he was the person, who had informed the police telephonically about accident at about 5.30 AM on the same day.

5. Respondent No. 1 Parvinder Singh is owner, respondent No.2 Jugal Kishore is driver and respondent No.3 National Insurance Company is insurer of car No. HP-01N- 0126.

6. Respondent No.4 Bhagmal is owner, respondent No.5 Dinesh Tomar is driver and respondent No. 6 Oriental Insurance Company is insurer of truck No. HR-37A-0093. Respondent No.7 is State of Haryana.

7. According to claimants, not only respondent No.2 was driving the car rashly and negligently, but there was also negligence on the part of owner/driver of truck as well as State of Haryana for leaving damaged truck on road causing obstruction to free flow of traffic which resulted into fatal accident.

8. Defence taken by car owner and driver is that their car, being plied as taxi was hired by some officers/officials of private company namely M/s Ranbaxy for coming from Delhi to Paonta Sahib and thus respondent No.2 was going to Delhi alone in the said car and at that time weather was foggy and visibility was very low, because of which driver of car could not notice the truck parked on middle of road and the car had collided with the truck causing simple injuries to driver. Their further case is that on coming out of the accidental car, respondent No.2 Jugal Kishore (driver) had noticed one person lying on road because of collision of his motorcycle with truck which had occurred before the collision of car with truck and another person, who was standing there, had asked him (respondent No.2) to help to shift the injured to hospital, whereupon, he had helped in shifting of the said injured, who was Sanjay Kumar, to the hospital. According to car owner and driver, they have been falsely implicated in order to claim compensation from them.

9. It is the case of truck owner that his truck