A.S. Oka, J.-The appellants, who are the claimants in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 (for short. hereinafter, referred to as "the said Act"), have preferred this first appeal for challenging the Judgment and Award dated 23rd January, 2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the Taluka of Salcete at Margao. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the claim petition was dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer.

2. The compensation has been claimed by the appellants on account of death of their daughter Miss Veena in a motor accident on 1st August, 2002. The case made out by the appellants is that their daughter was a qualified Civil Engineer holding a Degree in Civil Engineering and she was employed on a monthly salary of Rs. 6,000/-.

3. The case made out by the appellants is that the deceased Veena was proceeding from Margao to Majorda by her scooter. At that time a mini bus, owned and driven by the first respondent, came from the side of Seraulim in a fast speed. The case made out in the claim application is that the first respondent was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he was proceeding from the middle of the road. The allegation is that the bus driven by the first respondent gave a dash to the scooter plied by the deceased. The case is that as a result of the dash, the deceased lost control over the scooter resultantly her head banged against the rear side mudguard, due to which the deceased sustained injury to the head. The deceased died on the spot.

4. The second respondent was, admittedly, the insurer of the mini bus on the date of the accident. The total compensation claimed by the appellants was in the sum of Rs. 10.50,000/-. which included funeral expenditure of Rs. 30.160/-.

5. The claim petition was contested by the respondents by filing written statement. The basic contention raised by the respondents is that it was the deceased who was driving her scooter in a rash and negligent manner. The case made out in the written statement is that the first respondent was driving the mini bus in a moderate speed. It is contended that two buffaloes suddenly crossed the road in front of the deceased. The first buffalo crossed the road, but the second buffalo suddenly turned towards the deceased. It is the contention that the scooter was being driven in a very high speed. It is alleged that it was the scooter which gave a dash on the face of the buffalo and went on its wrong side and dashed against the rear portion of the mini bus. It is contended that as a result of the dash, the deceased felt on the ground.

6. The appellants examined the first appellant, Mangaldas Jadhav, and Lourenco Martins, along with one Ms. Sandra Pereira, as witnesses. The first respondent examined himself in support of his case. Apart from examining the first respondent, the respondents examined one Mr. Seby Pinto as well as one Santan D'Souza as witnesses. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the appellants failed to prove that the cause of the accident is the rash and negligent driving of the mini bus by the first respondent. In fact, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is that the accident occurred due to fault on the part of the deceased. The Tribunal held that if negligence could have been established by the appellants on the part of the first respondent, the appellants would have been entitled to compensation of Rs. 2.56.000/-.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has taken us through the notes of evidence and the documents placed on record. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the evidence of the two eye-witnesses, namely Mangaldas Jadhav and Laurenco Martins could not have been discarded by the learned Member of the Tribunal He pointed out that merely because their statements were not rerecorded by the police, their evidence cannot be discarded. He invited our attention to the evidence of Mr. S