1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondents even after repeated calls.

3. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment/award dated 08.10.2007 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribag in Claim Case No.48 of 2005 whereby and whereunder, the tribunal has dismissed the claim petition of the claimant appellants filed with a prayer for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-.

4. The brief facts involved in this case is that the claimants are respectively the father and mother of the deceased Suraj Kumar who allegedly on 02.12.2003 at about 5:30 p.m. while riding a bicycle along with Mukesh Kumar met with a motor-vehicle accident involving a trekker bearing registration no.JH-02A-2689 which was rashly and negligently driven at the relevant time and sustained injuries. Suraj Kumar and Mukesh Kumar were taken for treatment to Sadar Hospital Hazaribag, where they were declared brought dead. The driver after accident rushed away from the place of occurrence, with the trekker.

5. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the one Kishori Prasad Mehta, police registered Sadar P.S. Case No.550 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. No.2877 of 2003 for the said accident for the offence punishable under Sections 279/337/338/304A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of an unknown trekker and took up investigation of the case. After conclusion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet mentioning therein that the fact of accident is true but there is no clue. During the course of investigation, police on the basis of the suspicion detained the trekker bearing registration no. JH-02A-2689. After submission of the final form, protest petition was filed by the informant in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag and prima facie offence punishable under Sections 279/337/338/304A of the Indian Penal Code were found by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and summons were issued to the owner of vehicle-respondent no.1. After notice, the owner of the vehicle being the opposite party-respondent no.1 filed written statement denying the factum of accident but he took the plea that the vehicle in question at the time of alleged occurrence was insured with the opposite party-respondent no.3 hence, the opposite party no.3 is liable to pay the compensation amount, if any, to be awarded in the case while the driver of the vehicle namely the opposite party-respondent no.2-Gokul Ram was set ex-parte as he neither appeared nor filed any pleadings. The insurance company filed its written statement denying the factum of accident. Though in paragraph no.16 of the claim application, it has been categorically mentioned that the respondent no.3 is the insurer of the vehicle involved in accident yet in its written statement, the opposite party-respondent no.3 did not specifically deny the same and admitted the insurance subject to verification of the policy paper.

6. On the basis of the rival pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following four issues :-

(i) Whether the present claim case is maintainable?

(ii) Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle Trekker bearing No. JH-02A- 2689 resulting in death of late Suraj Kumar?

(iii) Whether the offending vehicle was duly insured on the relevant date of accident?

(iv) Whether the claimants are entitled for any amount of compensation and if yes, then to what extent and against which of the O.Ps.?

7. In support of its case, the claimant altogether examined three witnesses including C.W.3- an eye witness of the occurrence and proved the F.I.R. of Sadar P.S. Case No.550 of 2003, which case was registered in connection with the said accident, which has been marked as Ext. 1. The final form submitted by the police in that case has been marked as Ext. 2. The copy of the order dated 10.03.2005 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate found prima facie