V.S. Sirpurkar, J.— Leave granted.

2. In this appeal, the judgment of the High Court affirming the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) dismissing the claim of the claimants-appellants has been challenged. Shortly stated, the factual conspectus is as under :-

Claimant-appellants are the legal representatives of one Joginder Singh who was a young man of 34 years. An accident took place on 16.09.2005 while deceased Joginder Singh was driving a motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-26-P/9413 while going to village Nimot from village Mandavar. As per the claim, the motorcycle met with an accident as it was hit by a vehicle, Tata 207 bearing registration No. HR-38-L/6592 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. It is claimed that in that accident Joginder Singh died on the spot. He was claimed to be a registered medical practitioner and that his monthly earning was Rs. 25,000/- approximately. Therefore, a claim was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein the driver Het Lal, owner of the vehicle Pramod Kumar and the Oriental Insurance Company were joined as party respondents. The claim was opposed by the driver and he took the plea that no such accident ever took place though he admitted that he was the driver of aforementioned vehicle. In his statement, however, the owner i.e. respondent No. 2, while opposing the claim, admitted that his vehicle was engaged in the accident in paragraph three of his written statement. The part of paragraph 3 of the written statement of respondent No. 2 is as under :-

“The present claim petition is not maintainable against the answering respondent in view of the facts mentioned in preliminary objection No. 1 above and especially when the deceased was driving motorcycle No. HR-26-P-9413 rashly, negligently at as reckless, speed without wearing helmet, without holding effective and valid licence, hit Tata 207 bearing No. HR-38-L-6592 of respondent No. 2 from behind as he could not control his speed and thus, the deceased himself was the author of the alleged accident and there was no fault on the part of respondent No. 1 who was driving the Tata 207 with moderate speed, adopting traffic regulations and with valid, effective driving license. Hence this petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.”

3. The same plea is repeated in the written statement while replying to paragraphs 1 to 13 of the claim petition practically in the same words as stated above. The owner of the vehicle also went on to oppose the petition on the ground that the claimants-appellants were not the only legal heirs of the deceased nor were the sufferers or dependant upon him and that they had filed the petition only to extract huge amount by way of compensation. The claims made by the claimants-appellants in their petition about the age and income of the deceased were also denied.

4. Thus, it was clear that at least the owner of the vehicle admitted the claim made in the claim petition to the effect that the vehicle was engaged in an accident with the vehicle of the deceased and that it was being driven by respondent No. 1 who was his driver. In support of their claim of the appellants, following issues were framed by the Tribunal, they being:-

(1) whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-38-L/6592 by respondent No. 1?

(2) whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation on account of death of Joginder Singh in the accident and, if so, to what amount and from whom?

(3) whether respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident?

(4) Relief.

5. While respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not contest the claim and they were proceeded ex pars, it was only the insurance company, the third respondent who took part in the proceedings and tendered some documents to support their claim.

6. One Virender Singh was examined as PW-11 who was an e