Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—The present first appeal from order has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 26.7.2011, whereby the claim petition of the claimants-appellants has been rejected.

2. Smt. Rani wife of Ram Kumar and her husband Ram Kumar son of Lahori, are the appellants before this Court, who lost their only child, namely Mamta, aged about 8 years on 4.3.2010. The claimants-appellants are resident of village Purebeju, Majra Chanda Balipur, Police Station Nazirabad, District Raebareilly. The claimant-appellant No. 2 Ram Kumar had gone to his in-laws place and was returning alongwith his wife and daughter on 4.3.2010, and while they were at Purepandey Chauraha on Parsadepur Marg, a Bolero Jeep bearing registration No. UP 33M/6991, coming from Raebareilly side dashed/hit the claimants-appellants’ daughter, who was standing on left road side at 4.15 PM, on account of rash and negligent driving, as a result of which she sustained serious injuries and died instantly. The vehicle and its driver were caught at the spot and a timely First Information Report was lodged at 4.45 PM on 4.3.2010 being Case Crime No. 82 of 2010 under Sections 279, 304-A I.P.C., in which postmortem examination was also conducted. After concluding the investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C. The claimants-appellants, therefore, filed claim petition for payment of compensation on the ground that the deceased was only child and the appellants’ life had been ruined due to loosing of their only hope, who could otherwise have taken care of the claimants-appellants in their old age. Amount of compensation under different heads were claimed, amounting in all to Rs. 10,25,000/-.

3. Admittedly, the vehicle was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., which appeared before the tribunal and filed its written objection. It was claimed that the vehicle was being run through a driver, who had no driving licence nor any route permit was available and, therefore, the insurance company claimed that it was not liable to pay any compensation by virtue of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It also claimed that the driver of the vehicle was drunk and, therefore, the provisions of the policy has been breached. Various other defence were also taken.

4. The defendant-respondent No. 1 Pawan Kumar Yadav, who was the driver and owner of the vehicle did not appear before the Court below despite receipt of notice and the proceedings were conducted ex parte as against him by the tribunal.

5. On behalf of the appellants, oral and documentary evidence was led to prove their case. Copy of the F.I.R., postmortem report, charge-sheet alongwith registration certificate and driving licence etc. were filed before the tribunal. The claimants also led oral evidence of appellant No. 2 Ram Kumar and statement of PW.2 Mohan Lal. Both of them have been cross-examined. No oral evidence was led on behalf of the insurance company. The insurance company, however, brought on record a certificate to prove that the driving licence of Pawan Kumar Yadav was forged and actually no driving licence was issued to him and, therefore, the vehicle was being driven without a valid driving licence, which amounted to breach of the terms of the policy.

6. The tribunal framed four issues. The first issue was ‘as to whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, which led to serious injuries and death being caused to 8 year old girl?’ The tribunal on this issue came to the conclusion, namely relying upon the alleged admission of claimants’ witness that vehicle was being driven at normal speed, that the accident caused was not on account of any rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and, therefore, the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was held not to be made out. The issue No. 2, relating to the vehicle being insured, was answered holding that the vehicle was actually insured with