( 1 ) THIS is a first appeal filed by the appellants as their Claim Application no. 17 of 1984 filed before the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Pune (Tribunal) for compensation under Section 110 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939, (Motor Act) was rejected in toto. ( 2 ) ON 18th November, 1983 (the deceased), Hasmukhchandra Somchand Shah, was travelling in a Car No. MRX-5840 from pune to Satara on Bombay - Bangalore N. H. Road. When the said car reached near Kikvi village at about 9. 00 P. M. , the driver required to turn the car to the left side to avoid accident due to heavy flood light from the oncoming vehicles and in that process dashed into a stationed truck - tanker bearing No. MTT-8032, owned by Labhsingh, respondent No. 2, which was parked on the left side of the road but in reverse direction and without any light or signals. The deceased received serious injuries. He was removed to the Sasson Hospital, Pune, where he was succumbed to the injuries and declared dead. An application No. 17 of 1984 was filed before the Tribunal, Pune in the year 1984, which was resisted by the New India assurance Company Limited by its reply dated 12th December, 1984 as the vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited (respondent No. 4 ). The United India Insurance company Limited, respondent No. 3, with whom Fiat Car MRX 5840 owned by bholanath (since deceased), respondent No. 1, was injured. They resisted the claim by a written statement dated 14th September, 1984 and denied the incident as well as, the claims. They alternatively submitted their liability only to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- as per the terms and conditions of the policy. ( 3 ) AS the tanker was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited /respondent No. 4, by a written statement (Exh. 28) they resisted the claim and admitted their liability, if any, to the extent of rs. 1,50,000/- only in respect of third party personal injury. They resisted the claim on the ground that the driver of the car was negligent as the car dashed to the stationed tanker. They further submitted that there were enough street light, apart from the parking light of the tanker. The averments against the driver remained uncontested by the respondents. 1,50,000/- only in respect of third party personal injury. They resisted the claim on the ground that the driver of the car was negligent as the car dashed to the stationed tanker. They further submitted that there were enough street light, apart from the parking light of the tanker. The averments against the driver remained uncontested by the respondents. No evidence was led by the opponents / respondents in support of their objections and/or the written statements. The appellants / claimants led evidence in support of their claims. ( 4 ) APPELLANT No. 1, Anjanaben, wife of the deceased led evidence in support of the claims. It was further supported by the pushpaben the mother of the deceased, PW-2. The deceased was travelling in the said car along with his mother Pushpaben, relatives and friends. Being appellant and also an eye witness, she (PW-2) has supported the case of the applicants that at the relevant time there was no parking signal or any such indicator to the parked tanker. The driver could not see the stationed tanker from the distance. The driver saw the stationed tanker only after reaching near to it. Therefore, as in order to save the collusion, the driver of the car had dashed the stationed tanker. She has deposed that because of the heavy flood lights, also the driver of the car could not see the stationed tanker from the distance. The deceased had suffered various injuries in the car itself and died because of the heavy impact of the accident. In the cross-examination she further stated that the tanker was standing in the middle of the road which was obstructing the traffic. The left side of the car dashed against the tanker. She has further deposed that the speed of the car was just higher than normal. There was nothing to shatter her in the cross-examination. ( 5 ) THE Tribunal, however, by the impugned judgment and order held that the driver of the vehicle No. MTT - 8032 (Tanker) as well as driver of the vehicle No. MRX - 5840 (Fiat car) were not negligent. The Tribunal further held that the applicants failed to prove that the death of the deceased was not on account of negligent driving and therefore rejected the claim in toto. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the above and the grounds raised in the appeal, the following questions need consideration:-