JUDGMENT :

M.S. SONAK, J.

1. Heard Mr. Shailesh Redkar, learned Counsel for the appellant. The respondents, though served, are neither present nor represented.

2. Since the appeal is of the year 2016 and was duly notified on the cause list, the matter cannot be adjourned any further.

3. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 03.03.2016 in Claim Petition No. 122 of 2014 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) dismissing the Claim Petition because the claimants were unable to establish that the accident took place on account of rashness and negligence of respondent no. 1, the driver of the Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Registration No. GA-02-S-0761.

4. Mr. Redkar, firstly submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in not even determining the compensation amount and such approach is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimlesh and Others vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 8 SCC 591.

5. Mr. Redkar then submitted that the Tribunal has adopted a hyper-technical approach for determining rashness and negligence. He relies on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Anita Sharma vs. New India Assurance C