Mrs. Anita Chaudhry, J.:- The insurance company has challenged the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana vide which the claim had been allowed and compensation of Rs. 4,32,000/- was awarded.

2. It is necessary to refer to the facts as narrated in the claim petition:-

“On 5.10.2010, the deceased alongwith his friend Jasmeet Singh son of Shri Harvinder Singh, resident of Guru Ramdass Nagar, Peer Khaana Road, Khanna, who is also running an electrical shop at Khanna, had gone to Badail (Chandigarh) in car bearing registration No. PB-26E-0333 to purchase the electrical goods from there and after purchasing the electrical goods, they were coming back to Khanna in the abovesaid car, which was being driven by the deceased and said Jasmeet Singh was sitting beside him. At about 09.00 P.M., when they reached near Peer Jain, P.S. Fatehgarh Sahib, then due to the high brightness of the head lights of a vehicle coming frtom opposite side, the deceased lost control over his vehicle and the vehicle struck against a tree. Due to this, the deceased as well as said Jasmeet Singh sustained injuries on various parts of the body. The deceased also sustained injuries on his head and he died at the spot. They both were taken to Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib, where the post-mortem on the dead body of deceased was conducted and Jasmeet Singh was referred to some other hospital. An amount of Rs.20,000/- was spent on the transportation and last rites of the deceased. Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The claimants are also entitled for loss of consortium, loss of estate, pain and suffering.”

3. The legal heirs of Naresh filed a claim petition impleading the owner and the insurer of the car in which deceased was travelling. Compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- was claimed in the petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The respondents took the plea that the claim petition was not maintainable and there was concealment of facts and the deceased was not third party. It was pleaded that the deceased was driving the vehicle and it was with the consent of the owner and he was not having a valid and effective licence.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Court below:-

1. Whether Naresh Kumar died in the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of car bearing No. PB-26E- 0333 being driven by respondent No. 1 ? OPP

2. Whether the claimants are only legal heirs/representatives of the deceased ? OPA

3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable since does not fall u/s 163-A of M.V. Act ? OPR

4. Whether the claim petition is bad for mis-joinder and nonjoinder of parties ? OPR-2

5. Whether deceased Naresh Kumar as well as respondent No. 1 were not holding valid and effective driving licenses at the time of alleged accident, if so its effect ? OPR-2

6. Whether the offending vehicle was not having valid R.C., fitness certificate, and route permit at the time of alleged accident relevant time ? OPR-2

7. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation. If so, what extent and from whom? OPA

8. Relief.

5. The claimants in order to prove issue No. 1 had examined Jasmeet Singh PW-2 who had stated that a vehicle was coming from the opposite direction and as the headlights of the vehicle had blinded Naresh, he lost control and the vehicle struck against the tree and Naresh died on the spot. The Tribunal in para 11 of the award noted the following:-

“I have considered the rival submissions. With the evidence on file the claimants have been able to prove that Naresh Kumar deceased died in motor vehicle accident, but not by a gross negligent driving by respondent No. 1 and deceased himself was driving the vehicle at the alleged time of accident due to high brightness of the head lights of a vehicle coming from opposite side, which was not known to the claimant and the deceased lost control over his vehicle an