ORDER :

HIRDESH, J.

This misc. appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the appellants/claimants, arising out of the impugned award dated 14.11.2007 passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred as "Claims Tribunal), Mungawali District-Guna in Claim Case No.03/2006, whereby, the Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim petition for seeking compensation filed by appellants/claimants.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.10.2005 at about 06:30 AM, Kadir Ahmad was travelling from village Khiriya to Mungawali in Auto bearing Registration No.MP-08T-9924. As soon as the auto reached near Village Chinkupur Mungawali Chanderi Road, respondent No.2 overturned the auto by driving rashly and negligently as a result of which, Kadir Ahmad suffered injuries. Other people sitting in the auto also suffered serious injuries. During treatment, Kadir Ahmad died. Thereafter, police registered the case against Driver of the offending vehicle auto. After completion of investigation and other formalities, police had filed charge-sheet.

3. On account of death of deceased Kadir Ahmad, appellants/claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation. Respondents appeared before the Claims Tribunal and filed written statements and denied claim averments.

4. The Claims Tribunal after hearing both the parties framed issues and after taking evidence of both the parties and documents available on record, rejected the claim petition filed by claimants on the ground that claimants are unable to adduce any eye-witness in regard to prove the fact that at the time of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by Driver/respondent No.2 in rash and negligent manner.

5. Being dissatisfied by the impugned award, appellants filed this appeal and submitted that impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. It is further submitted that appellants by way of oral as well as documentary evidence before the Claims Tribunal have proved that at the time of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by Driver/respondent No.2 in rash and negligent manner due to which, deceased was succumbed. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned award and seeking compensation for which they are entitled to.

6. By filing I.A.No.7229/2008, cross- objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 submitted that at the time of accident, Driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle. Therefore, Claims Tribunal has wrongly exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation and, therefore, prayed for setting aside the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal in this regard against respondents No.1 and 2.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for Insurance Company supported the impugned award and prayed for rejection of appeal.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of Claims Tribunal.

9. On perusal of the impugned award, it is found that Claims Tribunal gave a finding that appellants are unable to adduce any eye-witness with regard to alleged accident and, therefore, they have failed to prove that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by Driver/respondent No.2 in rash and negligent manner.

10. On perusal of document adduced by claimants i.e. merg intimation (Ex.P-4), it is clear that alleged accident was occurred on 10.10.2005 and information of the same was given to the police on the very same day i.e.10.10.2005 and on receiving of such information, police recorded a merg intimation and investigated the matter. After registration of FIR against the driver of the offending vehicle and after completion of investigation and other formalities, police filed charge sheet.

11. Now, question arises for consideration of this appeal that due to lack of eye-witness account, whether the Tribunal has committed error in holding that the Driver was not driving the a