Mr. K.C. Puri, J.: - This is an appeal directed by Om Prakash-original owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR-19-7917 against the Award dated 01.06.2001 passed by Shri R. S. Madan, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohta, vide which the claim petition preferred by the claimants, was accepted with costs.

2. The relevant facts of the case are that on 01.08.1999 at about 10/11 AM, Ravinder Kumar was going on his motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-32-2276 from village Mandothi to Rohtak to attend his college. He was driving his motorcycle at a very moderate speed and on the left side of the road. When he reached near village Sampla, one jeep bearing registration No. HR-19-7917 came from the opposite side (Rohtak side) in a zig-zag manner and at a very high speed. The claimant, on seeing the jeep coming on high speed, brought his motorcycle on the kaccha berm of the road but in spite of that, Sumer Singh-driver of the jeep while trying to overtake a truck going ahead of him, brought his jeep on the wrong side of the road and hit the motorcycle of the claimant. Due to the impact, the injured/claimant received multiple injuries and fracture on his left leg and ankle. He was taken to PGIMS, Rohtak. FIR No.212 dated 04.08.1999 under Sections 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code was also registered against Sumer Singh.

3. Initially, respondents No.1 and 2 before the Tribunal, were represented by Shri H.P. Bansal, Advocate. However, thereafter, none appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and as such, he was proceeded ex parte.

4. Respondent No.2 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the claim petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties because Rajbir Singh was not the registered owner of the offending vehicle as he has sold the offending vehicle to one Om Prakash on 24.04.1998.

5. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed separate written statement taking preliminary objections of having no locus standi to file the claim petition. It was further pleaded that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license. In the alternative, the license hold by the driver was fake.

Om Prakash was arrayed as party by way of amendment and he also filed written statement admitting the factum of ownership. However, the factum of accident was denied. It was further admitted that Rajbir Singh has sold the jeep in question to him. The other averments of the claim petition were denied.

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

“1) Whether the present accident is the out come of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 Sumer Singh, while driving vehicle bearing No. HR-19/7917 on 01.08.1999, around 10.00/11.00 AM in the area of Sampla, in which petitioner received injuries ? OPP

2) If Issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount and from whom the petitioner is entitled to recover ? OPP

3) Whether respondent No.1 was holding a valid driving license on the date of alleged accident ? OPR

4) Relief.

7. In order to prove his case, injured Ravinder Kumar himself stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and closed his evidence after tendering certain documents.

8. On the other hand, the respondents examined Sewa Singh as RW-1, Clerk, RTA Office, Rohtak, Ashok Kumar, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Rohtak as RW-2, Chand Singh, Licensing Clerk as RW-3, Rajbir Singh-respondent as RW-4 and closed the evidence.

9. The learned Tribunal, after adjudication, returned the findings on Issues No.1 and 2 in favour of the claimants. However, Issue No.3 was decided in favour of the Insurance Company and recovery rights were given to the Insurance Company.

10. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said findings given on Issue No.3 in the Award dated 01.06.2001 passed by Shri R.S.Madan, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, Om Prakash has preferred the instant appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that findings on Issue NO.3 have been returned in favou