JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J. 1. These appeals [F.A.O. (MVA) Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of 1987] are being disposed of by a common judgment, as these arise out of the same accident and common award dated 30.7.1986 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandi, Kullu and Lauhal-Spiti districts at Mandi (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'), whereby Claim Petition No. 1 of 1986 titled Kaushalya v. Chet Ram, Claim Petition No. 5 of 1986 titled Chit-ranjan Dev v. Chet Ram and Claim Petition No. 6 of 1986 titled Chitranjan Dev v. Chet Ram were dismissed, holding that the accident was not caused by respondent Chet Ram, driver of truck No. HPM 1507 belonging to Department of Irrigation and Public Health, Division Mandi. However, the petitioners-claimants in the said claim petitions were awarded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- for each of the deceased under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). 2. It is not in dispute that the unfortunate accident in question had taken place on 16.12.1985 at about 2.10 p.m. as a result of collision of truck No. HPM 1507 and motor cycle No. HPM 1130 coming from opposite directions at Rani Ki Bain on Sundernagar-Mandi National Highway. Deceased Jagdish was driving the said motor cycle and deceased Prithi Pal and his wife Sikandra Devi were pillion riders, who died on the spot. Kaushalya, widow, Kishore Kumar, son and Chet Ram, father of deceased Jagdish filed Claim Petition No. 1 of 1986 claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the respondents alleging that on the relevant time and date "deceased Jagdish was coming from Bhan-grotu towards Mandi town on his left side on Sundernagar-Mandi National Highway on motor cycle No. HPM 1130 in slow, moderate speed, when truck No. HPM 1507 owned by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 collided with the aforesaid motor cycle (head-on collision) killing the driver and pillion riders Prithi Pal and Sikandra Devi. All the three riding on the motor cycle died on the spot. The motor cycle was damaged in totality." 3. Similarly, Chitranjan Dev, minor son of deceased Prithi Pal and Sikandra Devi, and Bhisham Ram and Durgi, the parents of deceased Prithi Pal filed Claim Petition Nos. 5 and 6 of 1986 claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- in each petition for the death of said Prithi Pal and Sikandra Devi. The motor cycle was damaged in totality." 3. Similarly, Chitranjan Dev, minor son of deceased Prithi Pal and Sikandra Devi, and Bhisham Ram and Durgi, the parents of deceased Prithi Pal filed Claim Petition Nos. 5 and 6 of 1986 claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- in each petition for the death of said Prithi Pal and Sikandra Devi. In para No. 24 of their claim petition identical allegations as in para No. 24 of the claim petition of Kaushalya Devi and others were made. 4. Separate replies were filed by Chet Ram and other respondents in each claim petition. But their reply to para No. 24 of the claim petitions was identical. It was: Wrong and denied. It is a fact that an accident took place on 16.12.1985 near Rani Ki Bain at 2.10 p.m. on Mandi- Sundernagar Road National Highway with truck HPM 1507 while going back to Ratti, I&PH Store on Government duty. The truck was being driven by Chet Ram, driver on his extreme left side while the motor cycle HPM 1130 driven by the deceased with tremendous high speed on the wrong side collided with the aforesaid truck while the truck had almost become stationary on its extreme left on kacha berm. The driver had seen the motor cycle coming on the wrong side with a very high speed, which resulted in head-on collision and damaged the radiator etc. of the truck. 5. By order dated 19.4.1986 Claim Petition Nos. 5 and 6 of 1986 titled Chit-ranjan Dev v. Chet Ram were consolidated with Claim Petition No. 1 of 1986 titled Kaushalya v. Chet Ram and the evidence recorded therein was ordered to be read as evidence in consolidated claim petitions. 6. On the issue whether the accident in question was caused by rash and negligent driving of the respondent Chet Ram, the evidence of Chander Mani, PW 5; Nagnu Ram, PW 6; Chet Ram, RW 2; Amar Chand, RW 3; and Jagat Ram, RW 4, is relevant. Both Chander Mani, PW 5; and Nagnu Ram, PW 6 have claimed to have witnessed the accident. According to Chander Mani, PW 5, the truck which was being driven at a high speed, collided with the motor cycle in the middle of the road and dragged it towards its side for a distance of 6 feet, as a result of which there were skid marks on the road. According to Chander Mani, PW 5, the truck which was being driven at a high speed, collided with the motor cycle in the middle of the road and dragged it towards its side for a distance of 6 feet, as a result of which there were skid marks on the road. As per his version, the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver of the truck. In his cross-examination this witness could not give the speed of the motor cycle but admitted that road at the place of accident was wide enough. He has further reiterated in his cross-examination that the truck was on pucca berm but after collision it went on kacha portion. He has admitted that the police personnel sitting in the truck was Jagat Ram who later appeared as RW 4. 7. Similarly, Nagnu Ram, PW 6 has stated that the truck was in high speed and after collision the truck dragged the motor cycle towards the khad but he could not tell as to on account of whose fault the accident had taken place. In his cross-examination, he has very fairly admitted that the truck was going on its side but he could not state whether the accident had taken place due to the fault of driver of the motor cycle. The statements of these two witnesses produced on behalf of the claimants do not prove the allegations made by the claimants in para 24 of their claim petitions that deceased Jagdish was driving the motor cycle at slow and moderate speed on his left side when the head-on collision with the truck had taken place. Joint reading of their statements shows that it was not the truck but the motor cycle which was on the wrong side at the time of its collision with the truck. 8. This conclusion is further corroborated by the evidence of Chet Ram, RW 2, the driver of the truck and Jagat Ram, RW 4, who was admittedly travelling in the truck. Chet Ram, RW 2, has claimed that after seeing the motor cycle being driven on wrong side at high speed, he had hardly stopped his truck after taking it on the kacha portion of the road, when the motor cycle collided with its front portion. According to him his truck was in 4th gear, whereas the speed of the motor cycle was about 100 kilometres. According to him his truck was in 4th gear, whereas the speed of the motor cycle was about 100 kilometres. He has denied that after collision the motor cycle was dragged by him towards his left side. Though he has admitted that after colliding on left side of the truck the motor cycle had got entangled with the truck and gone beneath it and badly damaged. Amar Chand, RW 3, who was running halwai shop near the place of the accident had supported Chet Ram, RW 2, that the motor cycle was being driven in high speed and collided with the truck, which was coming from the side of Sundernagar. He has admitted that there were skid marks of the truck on the road. In his cross-examination he has admitted that the place of accident is not visible from his shop but he has claimed that he was the first one to reach on the spot. He has denied that the motor cycle was dragged by the truck towards the left side of the road and there were marks on the road evidencing this. Constable Jagat Ram, RW 4, who was travelling in the truck, has also supported Chet Ram, RW 2, that after seeing the motor cycle being driven at high speed on the wrong side, Chet Ram, RW 2, had hardly taken and stopped his truck on the kacha portion of the road towards his left, when the said motor cycle collided in front of the truck, as a result of which its front tyre got entangled with the truck. In his cross-examination he has given the speed of the truck at the relevant time as 35-40 kilometres, which is the speed in its 4th gear, as stated by Chet Ram, RW 2. He has denied that the accident had taken place in the middle of the road and the motor cycle was dragged by the truck towards its left side but has admitted that the skid marks of the tyres of the truck were on the kacha portion of the road. He has further stated that the motor cycle had collided with the truck on its right side and not either in the middle or on left side. Besides these eyewitnesses Jagdish Chand, RW 5, has produced Exh. He has further stated that the motor cycle had collided with the truck on its right side and not either in the middle or on left side. Besides these eyewitnesses Jagdish Chand, RW 5, has produced Exh. RW 5/A to RW 5/C, which are daily diary reports of Police Station, Mandi Sadar in respect of the accident, on the basis of which F.I.R. No. 279 of 1985 under Section 279, Indian Penal Code was registered but it was kept untraced by the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi. 9. From the analysis of the statements of these witnesses we find that the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are correct that the motor cycle was being driven on wrong side at a high speed when it collided on the left side of the truck and the skid marks of the tyres of the truck were caused when the brakes were applied by the truck driver, Chet Ram, RW 2, in order to avoid the accident after seeing the motor cycle being driven on wrong side at high speed. The learned Counsel appearing for the claimants have not been able to convince us that these findings are not correct and the accident had taken place in the middle of the road due to the negligence of both deceased Jagdish, the driver of the motor cycle and Chet Ram, RW 2, the driver of the truck. The statement of Chander Mani, PW 5, deserves to be rejected in view of overwhelming evidence of Chet Ram, RW 2, Amar Chand, RW 3, Jagat Ram, RW 4 and admission of Nagnu Ram, PW 6 that the truck was on its left when the motor cycle had collided with it. The statement of Chander Mani, PW 5, deserves to be rejected in view of overwhelming evidence of Chet Ram, RW 2, Amar Chand, RW 3, Jagat Ram, RW 4 and admission of Nagnu Ram, PW 6 that the truck was on its left when the motor cycle had collided with it. The learned Counsel for the claimants have tried to make capital out of the statement of Amar Chand, RW 3, that there were skid marks of the tyres of the truck on the road to urge that after collision the motor cycle was dragged by the truck towards its right from the middle of the road but this submission deserves to be rejected outrightly as we have already held that in the absence of dragging marks of the motor cycle, the skid marks of the tyres of the truck were only caused when its driver Chet Ram, RW 2, had applied brakes to stop the truck in order to avoid its head-on collision with the motor cycle, which he had spotted being driven at high speed and also on the wrong side. 10. Therefore, we affirm the findings of the Tribunal that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of Chet Ram, RW 2, the driver of truck No. HPM 1507 and the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants, who are legal representatives of Jagdish, Prithi Pal and Sikandra Devi and their claim petitions are rightly rejected. However, despite these findings, they have rightly been awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for each of the deceased on the principle of no fault liability under Section 92-A of the Act, which payment the respondents have not challenged. However, Supreme Court in K. Nandakumar v. Managing Director Thanthai Periyar Trans. Corporation Ltd. referring to the provisions of Section 92-A of the Act has held in paras 4 and 5: (4) By reason of Sub-section (1) of Section 92-A an absolute liability is cast upon the owner of a vehicle to pay compensation in respect of death or permanent disablement resulting from an accident arising out of its use. By reason of Sub-section (3), the claimant is not required to plead or establish that the death or disablement was due to a wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner or any other person. Sub-section (4) is in two parts. By reason of Sub-section (3), the claimant is not required to plead or establish that the death or disablement was due to a wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner or any other person. Sub-section (4) is in two parts. The first part states that a claim for compensation under the section is not defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person who had died or suffered permanent disablement. The second part states that the quantum of compensation is not to be diminished even if the person who had died or suffered permanent disablement bore some responsibility for his death or disablement. (5) There was, therefore, on a plain reading of Section 92-A, particularly the first part of Sub-section (4) thereof, no basis for holding that a claim thereunder could be made only if the person who had died or suffered permanent disablement had not been negligent. The provision being clear, no external aid to its construction, such as the statement of Objects and Reasons, was called for. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants in F.A.O. (MVA) Nos. 5 and 6 of 1987 has made a lukewarm attempt to make out a new case for the claimants that they are entitled to compensation from the legal representatives of deceased Jagdish, as he has been found negligent in driving the motor cycle, which caused the accident and death of Prithi Pal and his wife Sikandra Devi. This is an argument of frustration, as this has not been their case either in the claim petitions or in the evidence and deserves to be rejected. 12. In view of our findings that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation from the respondents, we need not go into the findings of the Tribunal in respect of the determination of quantum of compensation to which the claimants would have been entitled from the respondents had their claim petitions been allowed. 13. In the result, there is no merit in these appeals and these are dismissed. No costs.