Judgment :- 1. This appeal is directed against the dismissal of the claim petition passed by the learned Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.152 of 2002 dated 16.09.2002, preferred by the claimants. 2. Brief facts relied upon by the parties before the Lower Court are as follows: (i) On 212. 1998 at about 5.00 a.m. while the deceased drove the jeep bearing registration No.TCV 2172 in Bangarupalam to palamaner Road near Mogil Mittoor village, an unknown lorry driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the jeep. The lorry driver did not care about the accident and proceed his way. Due to the accident the deceased died on the spot. The first claimant is wife, second claimant is son and the third claimant is mother of the deceased. The deceased was aged 35 years and doing business and Commission Agent at the time of accident and by means of which he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Hence a total sum of Rs.7,50,000/- is claimed as compensation. (ii) In the Counter filed by the respondent it is stated that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry which hit the jeep driven by the deceased and caused fatal injuries to the driver of the jeep. Hence the respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The respondent is not a necessary party to this proceedings. Only if there is a claim against the owner of the jeep, who is the first claimant to be satisfied then only the respondent liability will arise. In any event the compensation claimed is very high, unreasonable and exorbitant. The claimants have to prove age, avocation and income of the deceased. 3. The lower Court after going through the evidence adduced before it, had come to the conclusion to dismiss the claim petition filed by the claimants. The aggrieved claimants had preferred the appeal against the said findings and for the award of compensation. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit in his argument that the lower Court had wrongly dismissed the claim petition without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The aggrieved claimants had preferred the appeal against the said findings and for the award of compensation. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit in his argument that the lower Court had wrongly dismissed the claim petition without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case. He would further submit that the Insurance Company who is the insurer of the first claimant is liable to compensate the claimants 1 to 3, who are the wife, son and mother of the deceased respectively. He would further submit that the first respondent is the owner of the jeep involved in the accident, insured with the respondent Insurance Company, should be held liable since the owner of the vehicle viz., the first petitioner was already on record and therefore the Judgment passed by the lower court should have been set aside and the award for the restricted claim at Rs.5 lakhs may be passed as prayed for by the claimants in the main petition. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit in his argument that the lower court correctly appraised the evidence and had come to the conclusion of dismissing the claim petition. He would further submit that the claim of the appellants cannot be awarded since the driver who was driving the lorry in a rash and negligent manner, the owner of the said lorry and the insurer were not impleaded before the lower Court. The respondent in this appeal and before the lower Court was none other than the insurer of the first claimant, the owner of the jeep driven by the deceased at the time of accident. He would further submit that it is not a case of the petitioners that the deceased was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and invited the accident and therefore the insurer of the vehicle is not liable to be indemnified the loss of life of the deceased. Therefore, he would submit that the claimants cannot at any stretch of imagination, seek an award without impleading necessary parties viz., the Driver, Owner and Insurer of the lorry and the respondent is not liable as the insurer of the first claimant to compensate the first claimant and other claimants. Therefore he would request the Court to dismiss the appeal. 7. Therefore he would request the Court to dismiss the appeal. 7. I have given anxious consideration to the argument advanced on either side. .8. The admitted case culled out from the pleadings and evidence would be that the deceased was the husband of the first claimant, the father of the second claimant, and the son of the 3rd claimant. He met a road accident while he was driving the jeep bearing Registration No.TCV 2172, belonging to the first claimant was hit by an unidentified lorry and due to the said accident he sustained injuries and he succumbed to the said injuries. It is also an admitted fact that the defaulted lorry could not be located and the owner and insurer of the said lorry were not made as parties. The insurer of the jeep bearing Registration No.TCV 2172, belonging to the first claimant was alone made as a party and the claim was made only against it. 9. The concept of granting compensation to the victims of the accident or to the legal representatives of the deceased person is, that the owner of the vehicles which caused the accident are legally liable to compensate the victim or the legal representatives of the deceased persons. In order to ensure the payment of compensation promptly to those victims or the legal representatives of the deceased of the accident, the contract indemnification was made compulsory and accordingly every vehicle is under the legal liability of insuring the vehicle with the general insurance companies. The jeep involved in the accident bearing Registration No.TCV 2172 was accordingly insured with the respondent by the first claimant. It is not the case of the claimants that the deceased was driving the said jeep in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, there is no question of any fastening of liability against the first claimant for payment of compensation in favour of other legal representatives. If otherwise, the deceased was negligent at the time of accident the legal representatives cannot claim compensation for the tortuous act of the deceased person. So, when the first claimant could not be made liable to pay compensation in this case, there cannot be any fastening of liability against the respondent/insurance company who is the insurer of the 1st claimant. .10. So, when the first claimant could not be made liable to pay compensation in this case, there cannot be any fastening of liability against the respondent/insurance company who is the insurer of the 1st claimant. .10. The claimants have pleaded that the unidentified lorry driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the jeep belonging to the first claimant and in consequence the husband of the first claimant who drove the jeep at that time died in the accident. The said owner of the lorry involved in the accident and its insurer were not impleaded in the claim petition. If really any liability to pay compensation is to be fixed for the loss of life of Mr. Ravi, the husband of the first claimant, that could be fixed only upon the owner of the said unidentified lorry and its insurer. Since they were not identified and made available in the claim petition, it is not possible for fixing the liability upon the insurer of the first claimants jeep who is not the correct person to be inflicted with the liability of payment of compensation. Therefore the claim made by the claimant against the respondent is not at all sustainable. The lower Court had also correctly come to the conclusion by not fixing any liability on the respondent and dismissed the claim petition. 11. In my considered view there is no reason for interfering with the finding and decision reached by the lower Court and therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. In the peculiar circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.