Salil Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard the counsel for the parties on the Appeal, Application No. 1458 of 2000 filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.P.C.') and the cross-objections filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1988') has been filed by the owner of the vehicle against the judgment and award dated 7.7.2000 passed by the Vth Additional District & Sessions Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Dehat (hereinafter referred to as, 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 157/97, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as, 'claimants') and held the owner/appellant liable to pay the same. The claimants are the parents of the deceased.

3. Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 157/97 was filed by the claimants seeking a compensation of Rs. 4 lacs for the death of their son due to injuries suffered on 4.6.1997 in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Scooter No. U.P. 78 M-2033 (hereinafter referred to as, 'offending vehicle'). The appellant is the owner of the vehicle which was alleged to be insured with respondent No. 3. It appears from the records of the case that at the relevant time, the appellant was the District Supply Officer. In the petition the driver of the offending vehicle and originally the Insurance Company were not impleaded as defendants and the particulars of the driver of the offending vehicle were also not disclosed in the claim petition. It appears that the Insurance Company-respondent No. 3 was subsequently impleaded as defendant in the claim petition. The claimants are the parents of the deceased and the deceased was 5 years old.

4. The appellant filed his written statement denying the factum of the accident and also stated that, at the time of accident, the vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3 and also provided the details of the insurance policy. In his written statement, the appellant also pleaded that the claim petition was not maintainable because of non-joinder of necessary parties because the Insurance Company, i.e., respondent No. 3 was not impleaded as a defendant in the claim petition. It is noticeable that in his written statement, the appellant did not raise any objection regarding maintainability of the claim petition on the ground that the alleged driver of the offending vehicle had not been impleaded as a defendant in the case. It is also relevant to note that in his written statement the appellant had not stated that, at the time of accident, the vehicle was driven by an authorised person having a valid driving license and therefore the vehicle was being operated in accordance with the policy of insurance. The written statement of the appellant is on record as Annexure No. 2 to the affidavit annexed with the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C.

5. The Insurance Company also filed its written statement denying the factum of accident as alleged by the claimants and also denied that the offending vehicle was insured with it. In its written statement, the Insurance Company also alleged that, at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license. On the said allegations, the Insurance Company denied its liability to pay any compensation to the claimants.

6. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed issues regarding the factum of accident and the negligence of the driver of the vehicle in causing the accident and as to whether, at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle had a valid driving license, the inter se liability of the defendants, i.e., the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company, i.e., respondent No. 3 to pay compensation to the claimants as well as the amount of compensation to which the claimants were entitled