The main legal point established is the application of no fault liability under sec. 140 of the MV Act and the distinction from the rule of strict liability.

V. S. Aggarwal, J.

1. This is an appeal preferred by Raj Bala and others, hereinafter described as the appellants directed against the award of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Rohtak, dated 14.1.2000. By virtue of the impugned award, learned claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000 under the head no fault liability to be paid by respondents Bijender, sanjay Singh and Dharam Pal jointly and severally, along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation.

2. The relevant facts are that Raj Bala and others had filed a petition under sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was alleged that on 28.9.1998 Virender kumar s/o Baldev Singh was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No. HR 12-P 0148 from Bahadurgarh to Rohtak. The said jeep was being driven by Bijender. When the vehicle reached about 6-7 km. from Bahadurgarh towards Rohtak, Bijender started driving the jeep at a fast speed. Another jeep was noticed coming from rohtak side. Bijender dashed his jeep against the jeep coming from the opposite direction as a result of which Virender kumar suffered injuries. He was removed to the hospital at Rohtak where he succumbed to his injuries. The claimants were the widow and minor children of the deceased. They claimed a compensation of rs.8,00,000. The deceased was working as an Accountant with the Modern Food industries (India) Limited.

3. In the written statement that has been filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3, it was asserted that the accident had not taken place as has been pleaded. However, it was admitted tha-t the deceased was travelling in the jeep owned by respondent Nos.1 to 3 from Bahadurgarh to Rohtak. When the jeep reached 6-7 km. from Bahadurgarh , another jeep came from Rohtak side being driven in a rash and negligent manner. It struck against the jeep being driven by respondent No.1 and caused the alleged accident. It was asserted that the appellants have intentionally not impleaded the owner and the insurance company of that vehicle.

4. In the separate written statement filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd. , it was projected by way of preliminary objection that the petition is vague. It was further asserted that there was no driving licence with the driver of the alleged jeep. It was a fake licence. The liability to pay the amount in this process was denied.

5. Learned Tribunal framed the issues and after recording the evidence had held that the appellants had failed to prove that there was rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1. It was further asserted that it is not established that the driver had a valid licence. The result was that no fault liability of Rs.50,000 was fastened on respondent Nos.1 to 3. The petition qua insurance company, respondent No.4 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal has been preferred.

6. The first and the foremost question agitated has been as to if there was rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, who was the driver of the jeep? As mentioned above, the learned tribunal returned the finding that it has not been established. Indeed, the said finding must be stated to be based on evidence. The reasons are obvious. Mahender Singh, pw 2, eyewitness, has stated in his cross-examination that he had not witnessed the accident. Obviously, his statement is of little avail. So far as Mandroop, PW 3, is concerned? he deposed that on 28.9.1998 he was driving the four-wheeler from delhi to Rajasthan loaded with gunny bags. A jeep was following his vehicle. In the meantime, another jeep was noticed coming from the Rohtak side. The jeep coming behind his vehicle tried to overtake his Tata four-wheeler and in that process hit against the vehicle coming from the other side. During cross-examination, he added that the police did not record his statement during his visit to PGI MS, rohtak. He had not filed any claim with regard to the injuries sustained by him in the