JUDGMENT:

1. The appellants – original claimants are before this Court for challenging the judgment dated 07.05.2004 in M. A. C. P. No. 91 of 1996, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal). Under the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim of the appellants for getting compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of death of one Vijaykumar Laxminarayan Dube. Present appellant no.1 is his wife whereas, appellants no. 2 to 4 are his children.

2. It is stated in the Claim Petition that on 31.07.1995, Vijaykumar and Respondent No.4 – Dr. Sanjay Lad were coming to Pimprala from Paldhi on a scooter bearing Registration No. MH-19-D-3933 after having meal. At that time, one blue coloured motor vehicle bearing Registration No. MH-19-4788 of TATA Make, looking like a DCM Toyota, gave dash to the said scooter from back side. In the said accident, Vijaykumar sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. The rider of aforesaid scooter Dr. Sanjay Lad filed complaint against the said Matador type vehicle in Paldhi Police Out-Post and accordingly Crime No. 86/1995 was registered in Dharangaon Police Station. However, the concerned Investigating Officer filed report under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mentioning that there was no substantial evidence available against present Respondent No.1 i.e. driver of the said Matador, as per Exhibit-90.

3. Respondents No.1 and 2, who are driver and owner of the offending Matador, denied involvement of aforesaid vehicle in the accident by filing their respective written statements at Exhibits-29 and 30. It has been claimed by Respondent No.1 that there was no sufficient evidence against him, being the driver of the motor vehicle which gave dash to the scooter. Likewise, Respondent No.2-owner had also claimed that he was not at all owner of the motor vehicle which gave dash to the scooter on which deceased was a pillion rider. Respondent No.3-Insurer also, under its written statement, denied the fact that the aforesaid vehicle bearing Registration No.MH-19-4788 was insured with it on the date of the accident. It is claimed that in fact the motor vehicle bearing Registration No. MH-19-4388 owned by Respondent No.2 was insured with it.

4. Respondent No.4 Dr. Sanjay Lad, vide his written statement Exhibit-59, stated that he was not at all responsible for the accident and the aforesaid Matador had in fact given dash to the scooter and, therefore, he had immediately registered complaint in Paldhi Police Out-Post. Respondent No.5 i.e. Insurance Company of the scooter, involved in the accident, denied its liability of paying compensation on the ground that deceased was pillion rider and, therefore, not covered under the insurance policy.

5. The learned Tribunal, by considering all these facts, arrived at a conclusion that the Matador like motor vehicle bearing Registration No. MH-19-4788 was not at all involved in the accident and Respondent No.4 was also not at fault and, therefore, dismissed the Claim Petition of the appellants.

6. Heard rival submissions and also perused the impugned judgment along with the record and proceedings of original Claim Petition No. 91 of 1996 with the assistance of learned Counsel for the respective parties.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim mainly due to lack of evidence in respect of involvement of Matador type vehicle in the accident. He pointed out that Respondent No.4 had in fact lodged the First Information Report on the same day of the accident and accordingly crime was registered against present Respondent No.1, who was the driver of the said Matador. He further pointed out that merely because there was report under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Respondent No.1, the learned Tribunal should not have opined about the non involvement of the offending vehicle. Further, according to him, Respo