1. The claimants aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 31.5.2010 passed in MVC No. 278/2007 by the Fast Track and Member, MACT, Holenarasipura (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has filed this appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of this appeal are that on 1.6.2007 at about 7 p.m., the original claimant, viz., Chandregowda along with his brother - in - law, M. Shekar, got down from the bus at Thattekere Bus Stand so as to go to their village Thattekere and while they were proceeding, at that time, a Swaraj Mazda car bearing registration No. AP 10 - T 7395, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, dashed against the original claimant - Chandregowda and due to the said road accident, Chandregowda sustained fracture and injuries to his both legs and therefore was shifted to Hemavathi Hospital, Hassan, for treatment and he was inpatient for a period of one month and thereafter taken treatment for a period of eight months at Government Hospital, Holenarasipura. Hence spent huge amount for treatment. It is further contended that the original claimant was hale and hearty before the accident and was working as a driver and earning Rs. 6,000 p.m. Due to the said accident, he lost his earning capacity, became permanently disabled and was not in a position to work. Hence, filed the claim petition under S.166 of the MV Act claiming compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 with interest.
2.1 Respondent No. 1 - owner of the offending vehicle filed separate written statement admitting the accident and also admitted his ownership over the offending vehicle and that one Krishnegowda was the driver of the said vehicle and that the said driver was having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and that if any award is passed by the court, the same has to be indemnified by respondent No. 2 - insurance company.
2.2 During the pendency of the claim petition, the original claimant - Chandregowda expired on 24.4.2008. The claimants, being the wife and mother of Chandregowda, filed an application for substitution of legal heirs and the same was allowed by the Tribunal and they also filed an application for amendment of the claim petition. The same also came to be allowed.
2.3 Respondent No. 2 - insurance company filed objections stating that the claim petition against respondent No. 2 was not maintainable and further contended that when an injured - claimant dies during the pendency of the claim petition, his legal heirs cannot prosecute the claim petition presented by the injured person and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
2.4 The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings has framed the following issues:
"(1) Whether the petitioners to prove that on 1.6.2007 her deceased husband Chandregowda at about 7 p.m., who got down from the bus and was going to his brother - in - law, M. Shekar's house on left side of the road at village Thattekere by that time the offending vehicle bearing registration No. AP 10 - T 7395 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against deceased Chandregowda and he sustained accidental grievous injuries all over body even though he has been treated, not recovered, ultimately died as result of accident?
(2) Whether the respondent No. 2 to prove that the vehicle driver does not possess valid driving licence on the date of accident and it is not liable to pay any claim?
(3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs. 20,00,000? If so, on what rate? From whom?
(4) What order or decrees?"
2.5 The wife of the deceased - Chandregowda examined herself as PW 1 and examined five witnesses as PWs 2 to 6 and got marked the documents as Exhs. P1 to P81.
On behalf of respondent No. 2 - insurance company, one witness was examined as RW 1 and got marked Exhs. R1 to R10.
2.6 The Tribunal after considering the material on record has dismissed the claim petition solely on the ground that the legal representatives have no locus standi to