The Tribunal has a duty to determine the amount of compensation, the person or persons to whom it shall be paid, and the amount to be paid by the insurer, owner, or driver involved in the accident.

Gurnam Singh, J.

1. Gurmel Singh son of Bachan Singh, resident of village Bapdi died in an accident on 4-12-1970 near village Andhgarh on Karnal-Indri-Ladwa road. Bachan Singh, father, Budho, mother, Parkasho and Krishni, sisters and Rattan Singh brother of Gurmel Singh deceased, as legal representatives of Gurmel Singh, submitted an application for compensation amounting to rupees one lakh under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, alleging that the death of Gurmel Singh had been caused by rash and negligent driving of truck No. HRK 6664 by Prabh Dayal driver. The petitioners alleged that Gurmel Singh deceased was working as a labourer with P.W.D. (B&R) authorities on the Karnal-Indri road, that he had gone to Indri on 4-12-1970 on a cycle to receive his wages, that he was carrying Gurbux Singh, another labourer, on the cycle who also had to collect his wages and that Bachan Singh, one of the claimants, had also accompanied him on a cycle. It is further alleged that when they reached Indri, they were informed that they could collect their wages from the officer who was with the labourers near village Andhgarh, that all of them left for Andhgarh, that when they reached near village Andhgarh they saw truck No. HRK 6664 coming from Ladwa side at a fast speed and being driven in a zig-zag manner, that apprehending danger they took their cycles to extreme left on the kacha portion of the road and that Prabh Dayal, driver of the truck, caused accident and thereby killed Gurmel Singh there and then.

2. The petitioner made Prabh Dayal, driver and Dai Ram son of Matoo Ram Aggarwal, Prop. Iron Foundary Works, G. T. Road, Samalkha, District Karnal, owner of the truck and the insurance company as respondents. The name of the insurance company was not known to the petitioners at the time of filing the application but later on it was found that the insurance company was the Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi.

3. Prabh Dayal respondent, the driver of the truck admitted the accident and further pleaded that the claim was time barred, that the truck was being driven with due care and caution but the sudden and unforeseen development of the movements of the deceased had practically made it impossible to avoid the impact notwithstanding the best efforts made by him. Dai Ram respondent pleaded that he was not the owner of the truck in question.

4. The Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Ltd., New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the insurance company) in its reply pleaded that the application was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and that the insured had not been made a party and, therefore, it is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants. It further pleaded that Dai Ram was not the owner of the truck in question. The insurance company however, admitted that the truck was being driven by Prabh Dayal respondent at the time of accident.

5. In replication the applicants reiterated their claim and stated that Dai Ram respondent No. 2 was the owner of the truck.

6. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) framed the following issues :-

1. To what amount of compensation, if any, the petitioners are entitled and from whom? O.A.

2. Is the claim petition within time? O.A.

3. Is the claim petition bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of parties ? O.R.

4. Whether the claimants have locus standi to file the petition ? O.A. (Objected to).

5. Whether the death of Gurmel Singh deceased was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 O.A.

Issue Nos. 1,2, 4 and 5 were decided in favour of the claimants and on issue No. 3 it was held that the claim was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. In the light of the decision on issue No. 3 the Tribunal dismissed the petition leaving the parties to bear their own costs. It is against this order that the claimants have filed this appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the claimants contended t