JUDGMENT :

Vivek Varma, J.

1. Heard Sri S.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Mohan Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 i.e. Insurance Company, and Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 i.e. driver of the vehicle.

2. The present first appeal from order has been preferred by the claimants-appellants against the judgment and order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Ballia (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 56 of 2016 (Smt. Poonam Devi and others v. Prabandhak, United India Insurance Co. and others), whereby the claim petition has been rejected.

3. It is the case of the appellants that on 10.03.2016 Sri Suraj Pratap Singh (deceased) was travelling from Azamgarh to Lucknow by Scorpio Jeep, bearing Registration No. UP60 X 2715 (hereinafter referred to as the “vehicle”), along with respondent nos. 2 and 3 and two others. The respondent no. 3-Sri Gajendra Bahadur Singh was driving the vehicle. All of a sudden a Neelgai appeared on the road. While trying to save the Neelgai, the car collided against the divider and all the passengers in the vehicle were injured. Sri Suraj Pratap Singh was taken to King George Medical College, Lucknow but he succumbed to his injuries on 10.03.2016.

4. The claimants-appellants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation for Rs.90,78,000/-on 11.04.2016 alleging inter alia that Suraj Pratap Singh died as a result of injuries suffered in the abovementioned accident of 10.03.2016, which occurred due to negligent driving of Gajendra Bahadur Singh, who was the driver of the vehicle, in which the deceased was travelling. The insurer of the vehicle-United India Insurance Company Limited as well as owner and driver of the vehicle were impleaded as party respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

5. The respondent no. 1-insurance company filed its written statement and denied the accident and the involvement of the vehicle. The insurance company asserted that the claim petition was based on incorrect facts and was liable to be rejected.

6. Following issues were framed by the Tribunal on 27.10.2016:

“1) Whether on 10-03-2016 at about 05.00 A.M. near Sursanda Petrol Pump, P.S. Masauli, district Barabanki, an accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of vehicle Scorpio No. UP60X/2715 as a result of which, Suraj Pratap Singh @ Ravi Singh sustained injuries and died? If so, its' effect?

(2) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle No. UP60X/2715 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? If so, its' effect?

(3) Whether the offending vehicle No. UP60X/2715 was not validly and effectively insured with opposite party No. 1 United India Insurance Co. Ltd.? If so, its' effect?

(4) Whether the offending vehicle No. UP60X/2715 was plied according to the provisions of insurance policy?

(5) To what amount of compensation, are the petitioners entitled? And from whom?”

7. Subsequently, the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 20.03.2018 considered the following points:

“1. Whether the petitioners have cause of action in the matter?

2. To what relief the petitioners are entitled for?”

8. The Tribunal while considering the aforesaid points referred to the statement of P.W.-1 Smt. Poonam Devi, who is the mother of the deceased. She deposed that the deceased was on his way to Lucknow for medical treatment when the accident occurred. During cross-examination she stated that she is not an eye witness of the occurrence and the respondent nos. 2 and 3 were present at the time of accident and the entire story was narrated by them to her. Thereafter, the Tribunal considered the cross-examination of P.W.-2 Sri Satendra Nath. It was stated by P.W.-2 Sri Satendra Nath that he along with the deceased and other friends were going to Lucknow as Suraj Pratap Singh, Nilesh and Brijesh had to purchase land at Lucknow. He depose