JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. By the medium of FAO No. 525 of 2007, the appellants-claimants have questioned the award dated 20.09.2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court), Kullu, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No. 116/4, 15 of 2005, titled Smt. Neelakshi & others versus Bhupinder Pal & others. 2. In FAO No. 532 of 2007, the appellants-claimants have called in question the award dated 19.09.2007, passed by the Tribunal, in Claim Petition No. 100 of 2004, 17 of 2005, titled Smt. Rajni & another versus Bhupinder Pal & others. 3. In FAO No. 456 of 2007, the appellants-claimants have challenged the award dated 22.09.2007, passed by the Tribunal, in Claim Petition No. 4/05, 16/05, titled Smt. Chandra Watti alias Banti versus Sh. Bhupinder Pal & others. 4. Alongwith these appeals, respondent No. 2Puran Chand has filed Cross Objections No. 166 of 2008 in FAO No. 525 of 2007, Cross Objections No. 191 of 2008 in FAO No. 532 of 2007 and Cross Objections No. 190 of 2008 in FAO No. 456 of 2007, setting aside the impugned awards. 5. All these three appeals and cross objections are outcome of a motor-vehicular accident, which occurred on 25.08.2004, at about 6.45 p.m., near Village Jan Phati Bardha Mothi, Harkandi, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P., hence taken up together for disposal. Brief facts: 6. The claimants had invoked jurisdiction of the Tribunal in terms of the mandate of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short ‘the Act’), and sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- in Claim Petition No. 116/04, 15 of 2005 and Rs.10,000/- each, in Claim Petitions No. 100 of 2004, 17 of 2005, and 4/05, 16/2005, as per the break-ups given in the claim petitions. 7. The respondents contested the claim petitions on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 8. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 116/04, 15 of 2015: “1. Whether vehicle/jeep No. HP-49A-0262 was driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent-Puran Chand which resulted in causing the death of Dina Nath in the accident? ….OPA 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled for the claim of compensation. If so, to what amount and by whom? …OPA 3. Whether petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? …OPR-2. 4. ….OPA 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled for the claim of compensation. If so, to what amount and by whom? …OPA 3. Whether petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? …OPR-2. 4. Whether petition is not maintainable, as alleged? …OPR 5. Whether vehicle in question was not insured with respondent No. 3, as alleged? …OPR-3 6. Whether respondent No. 2 as not possessing valid and effective driving licence. If so, its effect? …OPR-3 7. Whether deceased was gratuitous passenger of the vehicle in question and as such, respondent No. 3 is not liable to pay the compensation amount? …OPR 8. Whether respondent No. 4 is not a owner of the vehicle and as such, is not liable to pay compensation as alleged? …OPR-4 9. Relief.” 9. Following issues were framed in Claim Petition No. 100 of 2004, 17 of 2005: “1. Whether accident of the vehicle in question took place due to the rash or negligent driving of the said vehicle by respondent-Sh. Puran Chand, resulting in the death of Tara Chand, as alleged? …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether respondents are liable to pay the compensation, if so, to what amount and by whom? …OPP 3. Whether petition is not maintainable as alleged? …OPR-2 4. Whether the deceased was unauthorized gratuitous passenger in the vehicle in question and as such, petitioners are not entitled for the claim as alleged? …OPR-3 5. Whether respondent-Puran Chand was driving the vehicle without valid and effective driving licence, as alleged? ...OPR-3 6. Whether vehicle in question was being plied in contravention of the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and the contract of Insurance Policy as alleged? ….OPR-3 7. Whether deceased Chaman Lal was driving the vehicle at the relevant time, if so, its effect? …OPR-2 8. Relief.” 10. In Claim Petition No. 4/05, 16/05, the Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether vehicle No. HP-49A-0262 was driven by respondent Puran Chand in rash or negligent manner which resulted in causing the death of Chaman Lal in accident as alleged? …OPP 2. Whether respondent Puran Chand was not holding valid and effective driving licence, as alleged? ….OPR-3 3. Whether deceased Chaman Lal was gratuitous passenger in vehicle No. HP-49A-0262, as alleged? ….OPR-3 4. …OPP 2. Whether respondent Puran Chand was not holding valid and effective driving licence, as alleged? ….OPR-3 3. Whether deceased Chaman Lal was gratuitous passenger in vehicle No. HP-49A-0262, as alleged? ….OPR-3 4. Whether vehicle in question was being plied in contravention of provisions of M.V. Act as well as terms of contract of Insurance Police? …OPR-3 5. Whether respondent Rohlu Ram was the owner of the truck in question at the time of accident, as alleged? …OPR-2 6. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled for the claim of compensation. If so, to what amount and by whom? …OPP 7. Relief” 11. Parties examined witnesses and also produced documents in support of their claims. 12. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petitions on the ground that the claimants have not disclosed all the facts and have not come to the Court with clean hands. 13. Findings returned by the Tribunal in all the claim petitions, are not tenable for the following reasons. 14. It appears that the learned Presiding Officer is not aware of the aim and object for granting the compensation and has not gone through the provisions of Section 169 of the Act and the Rules made by the Himachal Pradesh Government. 15. The Tribunal has to adopt summary procedure as per the mandate of Section 169 of the Act. The Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable. Only those provisions are applicable which are made applicable under the Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules. 16. Proof of rashness and negligence is sine qua non for maintaining petition under Section 166 of the Act. 17. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the claimants have not examined the Investigating Officer, who has conducted investigation in FIR No. 409/2004, dated 25.08.2004, under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kullu. Even the driver and the owner have not proved whether the deceased were traveling inside the offending vehicle or were walking on the road side. 18. Even the driver and the owner have not proved whether the deceased were traveling inside the offending vehicle or were walking on the road side. 18. Learned Counsel for the parties have frankly conceded that the impugned awards deserve to be set-aside, so far as same relate to Issues No. 1, 2 & 7 in Claim Petition No. 116/04, 15 of 2005, issues No. 1, 2 & 4 in Claim Petition No. 100 of 2004, 17 of 2005 and issues No. 1, 3 & 6 in Claim Petition No. 4/05, 16 of 2005, regarding death of deceased due to rash and negligent driving by driver Puran Chand, granting of compensation and gratuitous passenger. 19. I have gone through the evidence. The Tribunal has rightly recorded findings on issues qua non-joinder of necessary parties, maintainability, insurance of the vehicle with United India Insurance Company, validity of driving licence and ownership. 20. Having said so, the findings returned by the Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 116/04, 15 of 2005 on Issues No. 1, 2 & 7, in Claim Petition No. 100 of 2004, 17 of 2005 on issues No. 1, 2 & 4 and in Claim Petition No. 4/05, 16 of 2005 on issues No. 1, 3 & 6, are set aside. The findings returned by the Tribunal in all the claim petitions on the other issues are upheld. 21. In the given circumstances, the impugned awards are set aside, as indicated above and the cases are remanded to the Tribunal, commanding the Tribunal to provide three opportunities to the claimants to lead evidence within a period of one and a half month w.e.f. 01.04.2015, thereafter three opportunities to the insurer and owner to lead evidence in rebuttal within the same time and to take the claim petitions to its logical end within one month thereafter. 22. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 01.04.2015. 23. Registry to send the record of the cases alongwith a copy of this judgment forthwith so as to reach the Tribunal below well before the date fixed.