JUDGMENT :

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J.

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 04.02.2003 passed in MACT Case No.18 of 2001 decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (for short “Tribunal”) vide which the claim petition filed by the claimant under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) for compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident has been dismissed.

2. The file of the present case has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Branch. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record certified copies of the statements of witnesses recorded before the Tribunal, which are taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.

3. The present claim petition was instituted by claimant-Sunder Singh seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by him in a roadside accident which took place on 02.01.2001 within the area of village Gadpuri on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.3 while driving offending vehicle bearing No.HR-21-A-8409 owned by respondents No.1 and 2 and insured with respondent No.4. As per his version, he suffered grievous injuries in the accident in question. He was initially treated at Civil Hospital, Ballabgarh from where he was referred to B.K. Hospital, Faridabad and thereafter, to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi. He was operated upon and one rod was inserted and another surgery was advised. Thereafter, he remained admitted in Dhariwal Nursing Home, Palwal from 04.01.2001 to 06.02.2001, where another surgery was performed for fracture of left femur and fracture of left lateral malleolus. He had incurred a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on his treatment and had suffered a lot of pain and sufferings. Petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries suffered by him.

4. Respondents No.1 to 3 in their joint written statement have refuted the contents of the claim petition. It has been denied that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the said offending vehicle. It is submitted that vehicle in question was insured with respondent No.4, which is liable to indemnify the insured.

5. Respondent No.4 in its written statement has denied the factum of accident. It is further submitted that claimant wants to take benefit of his own wrong. The driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and as such, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner/insured. Dismissal of the claim petition was sought.

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

“1.Whether the accident, which took place on 2.1.2001 in the area of village Gadpuri, was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Jeep No. HR-21/A-8409 being driven by respondent no.3 and which resulted in causing injuries to the petitioner. If so to what effect? OPP

2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the claimant is entitled to compensation for the injuries received in the accident. If so, how much and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR

4. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action and locus standi to maintain this petition? OPR.

5 Whether the respondent No.3 was not holding a valid the time of and effective driving licence accident. If so, its effect? OPR4 at

6. Relief.”

7. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

8. The Tribunal, while deciding issue No.1 held that the accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the offending vehicle and infact, accident occurred due to bursting of tyre and decided issue No.1 against the claimant. In view of finding on issue No.1, it was held that petitioner is not entitled any compensation. However, under issue No.4, it was held that vehicle was insured with respondent No.4 vide policy Ex.R1 and insurance company has failed to lead any evid