DARSHAN SINGH, J.

The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 07.05.2010 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (hereinafter called the ‘Tribunal) vide which the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the Act) for grant of compensation on account of death of Vimaljit, who died in the motor vehicular accident which took place on 23.06.2008, has been dismissed.

2. As per the case of the appellants-claimants, deceased Vimaljit was working as a Manager with Century Veterinary Division. On 23.06.2008 at about 07:30 p.m., he was going on motorcycle HR19A8194. When he was near the railway crossing Rohtak Road, Charkhi Dadri, respondent No.1 Rajpal alias Raju came there driving the tractor bearing registration No.HR16G1928 in a rash and negligent manner and struck the motorcycle of deceased Vimaljit. As a result of which, he fell down and received serious injuries. He succumbed to the injuries at PGIMS, Rohtak on the next day. It was further pleaded that he was earning Rs.12,000/per month and was having the degree in Master in Business Administration from Kurukshetra University. The claimants have claimed the compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/.

3. Respondents No.1 & 2 contested the petition on the plea that the first information report against respondent No.1 was false. He was not at fault. The facts have been concealed. The respondent Insurance-Company has pleaded that it was not a case of vehicular accident. The FIR has been lodged by an interested party who was not the eye witness of the occurrence.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle tractor bearing registration No.HR16G1928 by respondent No.1 Rajpal alias Raju, resulting into death of Vimaljit Singh as alleged? OPP

2. Whether claimants are related to deceased Vimaljit Singh as alleged? OPP

3. If issues Nos.1 & 2 are proved, whether claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP

4. Whether petition is vague, indefinite, not filed in accordance with provisions of law and is not maintainable? OPR

5. Whether this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try and decide this petition? OPR

6. Whether the claim petition is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder for necessary parties? OPR

7. Whether the claim petition is result of collusion in between claimant and respondent Nos.1 and 2? OPR3

8. Whether respondent No.1 was not having a valid driving licence and the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy at the time of accident? OPR3

9. Relief.

5. On appreciation of the evidence coming on record, the learned Tribunal held that the claimants have failed to establish that respondent No.1 was involved in the accident or that he has caused the accident. In view of these findings on issue No.1 the claim petition was dismissed.

6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid award, the present appeal has been preferred.

7. I have heard Mr. Ramendra Chauhan, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate along with Ms. Monika Jangra, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and gone through the record carefully.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition simply on the ground that the registration number of the tractor and the name of the driver were not mentioned in the FIR. He contended that Heera Singh, father of the deceased, was not an eyewitness of the accident. So, it is not expected that he will disclose the name of the driver and registration number of the vehicle. He contended that the vehicle and the driver have been traced out during the investigation of the criminal case. The statement of PW2 Jora Singh has been recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during the investigation who has revealed the registration of the