JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

Claimants of MACT Case No. 61 of 2007 have approached this Court by way of present appeal against the order dated 15.09.2008 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jhajjar, whereby their claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, has been dismissed by the Tribunal.

2. Trial Court record was called. Same has been perused. To avoid confusion, partes shall be referred as per their status before the Tribunal.

3. As per the pleaded case of the claimants, on 4.11.2006, Dharampal (since deceased) was going to village Fatehpuri from Jhajjar riding his motor cycle No. HR-14B-329. At about 5.00 PM, as he reached near Vidya Gas Agency, Kosli Road Jhajjar, a bus bearing registration No.DL-1PA-1203 came from the opposite direction, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle of Dharampal, as a result of which he sustained multiple injuries and died at the spot. Surender son of Ram Chander resident of Surihati reached in the meantime to the spot as he was coming from the side of Jhajjar. He noted the registration number of the offending bus and had witnessed the accident. It was pleaded further by the claimants that the deceased was working in Water Services Division, Jhajjar and thus was a regular employee of the Haryana Goverment. His monthly income was Rs. 10,000/- per month. Claimants are the widow and two childeren of the deceased who were dependent upon the income of the deceased. With these submissions, compensation of Rs. 25 lakh was claimed against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending bus, who were impleaded as respondents No.1, 2 and 3 respectively.

4. In the written statement filed jointly by the driver and owner of the bus, almost all the averments have been denied for the want of knowledge. However, it is alleged that accident occurred due to own negligence of the deceased.

5. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company in its separate written statement, apart from taking usual preliminary objections, denied the accident to have been caused due to rash or negligent driving of the offending bus. They also alleged Surender to be the procured witness as it is alleged that FIR was lodged on the statement of Balwan Singh ex-Sarpanch against an unknown vehilce. On the statement of ex-Sarpanch Balwan, FIR No. 402 dated 04.11.2006 under Sections 279 and 304A IPC was registered at Police Station Jhajjar. Prayer was made for dismissal of the claim petition. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Tribunal:-

"1. Whether Dharampal son of Jage Ram has died on account of injuries sustained by him in a road side vehicular accident which had occurred on 4th November, 2006 in the area of police station, Jhajjar on account of rash or negligent driving bus No.DL-IPA-1203 by respondent No.1 - Satyaveer? OPP

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to be compensated for the death of Dharampal having compensated for the death of Dharampal having occurred in the above accident, if so, to what extent and by whom?OPP

3. Whether the respondent No.1 was driving the above bus in violation of terms of insurance policy, if so, its effect?OPR

4.Relief."

6. After taking evidence produced by both the parties, the Tribunal decided Issue no.1 against the claimants by holding that the they had failed to prove that the accident was casued due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus. PW-2 Surender who was examined as the eye witness by the claimants was held to be a procured witness who could not be relied. Under the discussion of Issue no.2, compensation of Rs. 7,90,000/-was assessed. Under Issue No.3, it was held that Insurance Company had failed to prove driver of the offending bus was not holding valid or effective driving licence on the date of accident. The offending vehicle was found to be duly insured at the time of accident. However, on account of findings on Issue no.1, the claim petition was dismissed by way of order dated 15