Judgment Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. 1. This is insurers appeal challenging the impugned award dated 22.8.2009, whereby the liability to pay compensation to the claimants has been fastened upon the appellant jointly and severally along with respondent No. 3. 2. As per the averments made in this petition, respondent No. 1 filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of death of Prashant Munjal occurred in an accident arising out of the use of Scooter No. HR 05-E-4796 owned by respondent No. 3 and duly insured by the appellant and also arising out of the use of tractor trolley owned by respondent No. 2. 3. The aforesaid claim petition was contested by Rohtas, respondent No. 2 pleading that he does not own any vehicle (tractor trolley) and therefore, the claim petition against him was not maintainable. Respondent No. 3 owner of the offending vehicle admitted the case of the claimant in toto. 4. Appellant filed its separate written statement pleading total denial of the accident. However, it was admitted that the offending vehicle belonging to respondent No. 3 was duly insured with it. It was also pleaded that the deceased was a minor and was not having a valid driving licence. It was further pleaded that in order to get compensation, the false claim has been lodged in collusion with the owner of the offending vehicle. No other defence was taken up by the appellant in its pleadings. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- (1) Whether the death of Parshant Munjal was caused in vehicular accident on 25.8.2005 near Kadyan Petrol Pump, G.T. Road, Siwah (Panipat) on account of use of scooter No. HR 05-E-4796 ? OPP (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom ? OPPs. (3) Whether the claimant has no locus standi to file and maintain the claim petition ? OPR (4) Whether the false DDR was lodged at the instance of claimant in collusion with respondent No. 3, owner of scooter bearing No. HR-05-E-4796. If so, to its effect ? OPR 4 (5) Whether the claim petition is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of parties ? OPR (4) Whether the false DDR was lodged at the instance of claimant in collusion with respondent No. 3, owner of scooter bearing No. HR-05-E-4796. If so, to its effect ? OPR 4 (5) Whether the claim petition is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of parties ? OPR 4 (6) Whether the drive of alleged involved scooter was minor and not a skilled driver and was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident. If so to its effect ? OPR 4 (7) Relief. 6. It is also relevant to mention here that onus to prove issue Nos. 3 to 6 was upon the respondents (including the appellant) and these issues were not pressed during the arguments and no evidence was led. Thus all these issues were decided against the appellant and in favour of the claimant. However, it was held that Rohtas respondent No. 1 had nothing to do with the present accident. 7. Challenging the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the claim petition itself was not maintainable as there was no third party liability involved in the present case as admittedly the deceased was driving the offending vehicle owned by his mother-respondent No. 3 and no third party was involved whereas section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 provides for compensation to the third party against the owner or insurer of the motor vehicle involved in an accident and therefore, in view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in (i) Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2004(4) RCR(Civil) 786: 2004 AIR SCW 5438, (ii) Ningamma & Anr v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2009(3) RCR(Civil) 435 : 2009(2) AICJ128 : 2009(4) RAJ 164 (SC), and (iii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi and others, 2009(1) RCR(Civil) 817 : 2009(1) RAJ 472 : 2009(1) AICJ 602 : 2009 ACJ 998 (SC) the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 9. There is no dispute with the proposition of law as canvassed by learned counsel for the appellant on the basis of the aforesaid judgment cited by him. However, in the present case, no such argument was raised by the appellant before the Tribunal as raised before this Court. Thus, the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is without any merit. However, in the present case, no such argument was raised by the appellant before the Tribunal as raised before this Court. Thus, the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is without any merit. No merit. Dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.