ORDER R.P. Gupta, J. 1.This appeal is directed against the award dated 20-9-1994 given by the III Additional Motor Claims Tribunal, Sehore in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 63/91. One Mohd. Abdul Aziz, the predecessor of the respondents/claimants died on 28-12-1988 in a vehicular accident which took place on 14-12- 1988. Car No. MPC 7975 was being driven from Balaghat to Bhopal when the accident occurred. The car struck against a mile-stone and turned on its one side. The door of the car opened and Mohd. Abdul Aziz fell down and was crushed under the falling car. He suffered injuries. He was taken to Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal and expired on 28-12-1988. The car belonged to appellant No. 3 who is the daughter of appellant No. 1 and sister of appellant No. 2. Appellants 1, 2 and 3 were in the car. The Tribunal found that appellant No. 2 was driving the car and the deceased was taken by them from Balaghat as he was mechanic in a workshop known as New Janta Automobiles, Balaghat. They had taken him to ensure that on the way if the car goes out of order it can be repaired by the mechanic. However, the accident took place and he died. According to the claimants, appellants 1 and 2 had hired the services of the deceased as mechanic and took him in the car while appellant No. 2 drove away and appellant No. 3 was the owner. So they were held liable by the Tribunal. The car did not have any insurance on the dale of accident. The award of Rs. 80,500/- was given in favour of the respondents by way of compensation for loss of support and on various other counts. 2. The contention of the appellants was that in fact the car was being driven by the deceased and not by appellant No. 2. The car did belong to appellant No. 3 but it was not known to appellants 1 and 2, when they took the car. The deceased was going to Bhopal and they availed of this opportunity to take lift in the car as appellants 1 and 2 had missed their bus from Balaghat to Bhopal and it was night time. None of them was driving the car nor had they hired the services of the deceased as mechanic. The deceased was going to Bhopal and they availed of this opportunity to take lift in the car as appellants 1 and 2 had missed their bus from Balaghat to Bhopal and it was night time. None of them was driving the car nor had they hired the services of the deceased as mechanic. In fact the deceased was driving the car and it was found to be registered in the name of appellant No. 3. So the deceased himself was negligent in driving the car and nobody else could be held liable for the same except the owner of the car i.e. appellant No. 3 could be held liable to the extent of no fault liability i.e. Rs. 15,000 Under Section 92(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 3. The contention of the appellants is that there was no evidence worth the name to prove that appellant No. 2 was driving the car. Only respondent No. 1 appeared in the witness box. She was not in the car at the time of accident, she was not present when the deceased boarded the car, so she could not know whether deceased was driving the car or appellant No. 2 was driving the car. Her statement is mere hearsay. The nature of statements made by her allegedly could not be admissible in evidence being barred as hearsay and in any case she only stated that appellant No. 1 told her that appellant No. 2 was driving the car. Even this is not an admission of appellant No. 3 the owner of the car nor the admission of appellant No. 2. There is no proof that appellant No. 1 had engaged the services of the deceased and so there could not be any liability of appellant No. 1. So the award is based on mere conjecture. 4. The counsel for appellants has taken this Court through the pleadings of the parties in the claim petition and reply. The claimants had urged that now petitioner No. 1 Jyotsna Gupta, who was Naib Tahsildar, Bhopal, had brought her Fiat Car MPC 7975 to Balaghat where her lather and brother lived and Ajay Kumar was her younger brother. Both these appellants wanted to go back to Bhopal in their Fiat Car and deceased was running a factory at Balaghat. The claimants had urged that now petitioner No. 1 Jyotsna Gupta, who was Naib Tahsildar, Bhopal, had brought her Fiat Car MPC 7975 to Balaghat where her lather and brother lived and Ajay Kumar was her younger brother. Both these appellants wanted to go back to Bhopal in their Fiat Car and deceased was running a factory at Balaghat. They requested the deceased to accompany them so that in case of any default on that way in the Car, he may be able to repair it. So, at their instance, he accompanied them in the Car for Bhopal. He was having some pain in his leg and so he was not in a position to drive the car. Appellant No. 2 was driving the Car. It was at the instance of both the appellants 1 and 2 that the deceased accompanied them in the Car, but on the way it met with accident which resulted in the death of the deceased due to rash and negligent driving of appellant No. 2. By amendment of pleadings, it was pleaded that the Car was registered in the name of appellant No. 3. So all the three appellants were responsible for the accident and liable to the heirs of the deceased for compensation. The appellants Nos. 1 and 2 in their written reply admitted that the deceased Mohd. Aziz was a mechanic and that appellant No. 1 was Naib Tahsildar in Bhopal. However, she did not come to Bhopal by Car. She came by Train from Bhopal to Gondia. In fact, they sat in the Car from Balaghat for Bhopal on the insistence of the deceased who was driving Car and who had brought the Car there. It was denied that appellant No. 2 drove the Car at all. Appellant No. 1 denied that the Car belongs to her. It was urged that the deceased was responsible for his own death due to his own negligent driving. Appellant No. 3 urged in a separate reply that she never gave her Car MPC 7975 to appellants 1 and 2. Some times, the husband of appellant No. 3 used to drive this Car or ge't it driven by his friends. She hereself does not know driving. She does not know how and why the deceased was driving the Car on the day of accident. 5. Some times, the husband of appellant No. 3 used to drive this Car or ge't it driven by his friends. She hereself does not know driving. She does not know how and why the deceased was driving the Car on the day of accident. 5. On behalf of claimants, Smt. Shamim, claimant No. 1 and one Abdul Sattar, mechanic of Balaghat, appeared in evidence. Abdul Sattar has a neighbouring shop to the garrage of deceased in Balaghat. He says that Jyotsna (appellant No. 1) came to the garrage at about 1.00 p.m. on 14-12-1988 and requested the deceased to accompany her for the emergency that the Car may go out of order. So, Aziz accompanied her in the Car. He says that on the next day, Jyotsna, came to the house of Abdul Aziz and informed there that her brother was driving the Car fast and it struck against a milestone and Abdul Aziz fell and died being crushed under the Car. He admits that Abdul Aziz knew car-driving and asserts that Jyotsna had assured Abdul Aziz that he would be paid expenses for Bhopal. 6. Smt. Shamim, claimant No. 1, stated that her husband and Jyotsna had come to her house along with Ajay Kumar and her husband had told her that they were taking him to Bhopal so that if their Car gets out of order on the way, it may be repaired. Jyotsna had told her that her brother was driving the Car when the accident occurred. He used to drive Cars and Jeeps for trials. She says that Jyotsna told a number of persons that her brother was driving the ill-fated Car. 7. Jyotsna, appeared as her own witness. She admitted that Aziz was known to her. She disclosed that he was going to Bhopal by Car. She had come to Balaghat by 'Chattisgarh' train. The car turned turtle on the way by striking against some thing. The deceased Abdul Aziz got crushed under the Car. They took him to Hamidiya Hospital Bhopal, where he died and the dead body was taken by them to Balaghat and handed over to his family members. She did not own the Car MPC 7975, but it belongs to her daughter, Alka and was registered in the name of Alka. Parents of this witness lived in Balaghat. They took him to Hamidiya Hospital Bhopal, where he died and the dead body was taken by them to Balaghat and handed over to his family members. She did not own the Car MPC 7975, but it belongs to her daughter, Alka and was registered in the name of Alka. Parents of this witness lived in Balaghat. She asserted that on the day of incident she did not know if the Car belonged to her daughter Alka. Her brother Ajay lives in Balaghat. She admitted that there were 'family friendship' relations between her family and Aziz deceased. One important factor in her statement is that no suggestion was put to her in cross examination that she told the wife of deceased that Ajay was driving the Car at the time of accident. Ajay appeared as his own witness as R.W. 2. He staled that he was going to Bhopal to leave his sister Jyotsna. They missed the Bus and at lhal time Abdul Aziz came with the Car and disclosed that he was going to Bhopal. So he drove the Car. He and his sister sat on the back seat. There was a sudden thud and the Car on the way fell on one side and they saw the driver Aziz was stuck in the door of the Car. He said that he did not know how this Car was with Abdul Aziz that day although it belongs to the family of Alka. This witness has a driving licence, but he or his father have no Car. Alka's family has two or three cars. Alka is married at Bhopal. 7A. An interim order, on the basis of no fault liability, was passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal against the respondents in favour of the claimants for Rs. 15,000/-. 8. In the final award, the Tribunal observed that it was unbelievable that Jyotsna and Ajay do not know that this Car belongs to Alka or her family. So the Tribunal concluded that the Car must have been under the control of appellant No. 1, although appellant No. 3 was the registered owner. The tribunal found the ignorance of these appellants unbelievable as to how the Car came to Balaghat. So finding, the Tribunal further held that the burden of proving how the accident occurred was on the respondents. The tribunal found the ignorance of these appellants unbelievable as to how the Car came to Balaghat. So finding, the Tribunal further held that the burden of proving how the accident occurred was on the respondents. The Court said that it was unbelievable that Jyotsna would not know that the Car belongs to her own daughter Alka and was registered in her name. With these findings, the Tribunal further observed that the evidence suggests that Ajay, appellant No. 2, was driving the Car. The Tribunal has believed the version that Abdul Aziz was taken in the Car merely to ensure remedy for situation if the car went out of order and that it was only natural that Car should have been driven by the person under whose control it was, or her relatives. The Tribunal has observed that according to the statements of these appellants 1 and 2, Abdul Aziz was on the left side of the driver on the front seat at the time of accident. The fact that Ajay was not prosecuted for negligent driving or rash driving, might have been because of the influence of Jyotsna, Naib Tahsildar in Bhopal. With these observations, the findings were given against the present appellants that appellant No. 2 was driving the Car and it was under Control of appellant No. 1 while it was owned by appellant No. 3. 9. A careful scanning of the evidence of the appellants will certainly show that their statements that they did not know that the car belongs to Alka, who is daughter of appellant No. 1, does not inspire confidence. Jyotsna was posted at Bhopal and Alka is married at Bhopal. So Jyotsna would certainly know that the Car belongs to her daughter Alka. The family of Jyotsna, that is her parents and brother live in Balaghat. When the Car was at Balaghat they would also be knowing that this Car belongs to Alka. So their denial of knowledge as to whom this Car belongs, cannot be accepted. However, there is nothing to suggest that Jyotsna came in that Car from Bhopal to Balaghat. She has denied it and stated that she came by train upto a particular point and further they wanted to go back to Bhopal by Bus, but they had missed the bus. Ajay wanted to escort her back. However, there is nothing to suggest that Jyotsna came in that Car from Bhopal to Balaghat. She has denied it and stated that she came by train upto a particular point and further they wanted to go back to Bhopal by Bus, but they had missed the bus. Ajay wanted to escort her back. Assuming that the Car was with them that is Ajay and Jyotsna (without there being any evidence as to how it reached Balaghat), the question would be who drove the Car from Balaghat to Bhopal. Ajay and his parents do not have a Car. So it is not expected that he would drive the Car when he is not in practice. All they feared was that the car may go out of order. They engaged the services of this deceased as mechanic. An experienced mechanic is generally a good driver. That is a common fact of life. Therefore, Abdul Aziz should be expected to have driven the Car and respondents urge that he was actually driving the Car, may be at the instance of one of the appellants. He was not their employee, but engaged for the purpose of taking the Car to Bhopal either on payment or gratuitously as there was some affinity between Abdul Aziz and the family of appellants for a long period. 10. There could be only three witnesses who could know who was driving the Car. These were 3 (three) occupants of the Car. Two have appeared as witnesses and one is dead. The two appellants have stated that the deceased was driving the Car. There is no doubt that it is in their interest to deny that any of them was driving the Car. By such a statement, they do purport to avoid liability in tort. But on this reasoning alone, we cannot infer that appellant No. 2 was driving the Car, on the theory that burden of proof lies on them to prove who was driving the Car. Even if on the principle of special knowledge we put the burden on them initially, it is sufficiently discharged by their denial. The only evidence on behalf of the claimants regarding who was driving the Car is the statement of their witnesses that Jyostna told them that her brother was driving the Car. That fact was not confronted to Jyotsna. Even if on the principle of special knowledge we put the burden on them initially, it is sufficiently discharged by their denial. The only evidence on behalf of the claimants regarding who was driving the Car is the statement of their witnesses that Jyostna told them that her brother was driving the Car. That fact was not confronted to Jyotsna. None of the claimant-witnesses was present during drive of the car or at the time of accident. That car passed through Sconi admittedly and the occupants had taken tea there. No witness from there has been examined to state who drove the Car. The finding of the Tribunal is based on mere impulse that because knowledge of ownership of car is denied by these appellants 1 and 2, so they must be telling everything false as to who drove the car and one of them must have been driving the Car. This sort of reasoning is not permitted. There should be some indicative evidence as to who drove the Car. The persons who would know about it are interested in denying that they drove the Car. Their assertion that the deceased drove the Car is, otherwise, evidence in conformity with the natural conduct or ordinary human conduct. If a mechanic, who is an old experienced driver, is taken on Car for a night drive, it is expected that he would drive the Car. This is in conformity with the general experience. Further, a person who is not very well experienced in driving cars would not generally drive it at night time on a long journey through jungle. Ajay had no Car. So he was not an experienced driver. Particularly, he is not expected to take risk of night driving. So the probability is that the deceased was driving the Car. In view of this probability, the statement of these witnesses/appellants get weight that Aziz was driving the Car. 11. The Tribunal has not taken proper inference from the evidence properly while observing that these two appellants 1 and 2 have admitted that Abdul Aziz got stuck into the door opposite to the seat of driver. This does not lead to inference that somebody else was driving the Car. 11. The Tribunal has not taken proper inference from the evidence properly while observing that these two appellants 1 and 2 have admitted that Abdul Aziz got stuck into the door opposite to the seat of driver. This does not lead to inference that somebody else was driving the Car. They have stated that he got entangled in the door on the opposite side of the driver's seat as he was alone on the front seat (driver's seat) and car had turned on its side, opposite to driver's seat. The brother and sister (respondents 1 and 2) were sitting on the back seat. In an accident it is always a chance as to who survives and who is injured. It is not possible to explain on reasoning, as to why one possibility occurred and not the other. 12. The net result is that it is not established that the accident occurred due to negligence of Ajay appellant No. 2 in driving the Car. In fact, it occurred because Abdul Aziz himself was driving the Car and committed negligence. However, there arises question of no-fault-liability. That arises against the owner of the Car and not against the appellants 1 and 2 who are mere occupants of the Car. The no-fault-liability at the relevant time was limited to Rs. 15,000/-. The accident occurred on 28-12-1988. At that time the limit of no-fault-liability under the old Act was raised to Rs. 15,000/-. The Apex Court has observed in a case of Nand Kumar v. Govind, 1996(2) SCC 736 that if driver is negligent and if he drives, his heirs are entitled to Rs. 15,000/- from the owner by way of no-fault-liability. In view of the above discussion, the appeal must partly succeed. The award is modified to a limit of Rs. 15,000/- against appellant No. 3 who is the owner of the vehicle. The liability cannot be fastened on appellants Nos. 1 and 2. They arE absolved of liability.