( 1 ) U. P. STATE Roadways Transport Corporation by this appeal has assailed the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as M. A. C. T), inter-alia on the grounds that the claim petition did not disclose any cause of action. Neither there are any averments nor description of negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. In the absence of any particulars of negligence and the cause of action having been pleaded, the petition ought to have been dismissed. That there were glaring contradictions in the statement of the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants. In the absence of consistency their testimony ought to have been rejected. Moreover, the witnesses adduced by the claimants were not cited as witnesses by the police in the criminal case. Hence, no reliance should have been placed on their testimony. No award could have been given on equity or on sympathy.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the objections raised the facts in brief are that the deceased Avinash Kumar was running a business of selling artware. On 18th October, 1978 at about 8. 30 p. m. when he was going on his scooter, a bus (UPB-6446) belonging to U. P. State Roadways Corporation and driven by respondent No. 2 hit his scooter from behind. As a result of this accident he fell down and died at the spot. His wife was sitting on the pillion seat of the scooter at the time of accident. On account of the loss of life of her husband she filed a claim for Rs. 5,00,000. 00 (Rupees Five lakhs only) as compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act (in short the Act ). Monthly income of the deceased as given in the petition was Rs. 6,000. 00 per month. He was 35 years old at the time of death.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal after considering the evidence, awarded a sum of Rs. 45,000. 00 in favour of the claimant vide Award dated 30th September, 1982.

( 4 ) AT the outset it must be mentioned that petition was filed on 12th April, 1979. The original file was lost. The original claim petition, hence is not on the record. This fact finds mention in the order passed by this Court in C. M. (M) No. 196/80 decided on 10th November, 1981. Justice S. B. Wad while disposing of that petition filed by the claimant Smt. Shanti Devi observed that:-

"it is a sad commentary on the noble profession. But a more grave problem to the administration of justice, is a complaint regarding the general working of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. The complaints regarding unsatisfactory working are now publically voiced. It is high time that this Court take aserious note of it and directs the administration to take effective steps to set the things right. The litigants appearing before these Tribunals are unfortunate victims of road accidents or are their relations. If they are subjected to hardships by the Insurance companies, Advocate, the administrative staff in the Tribunal and the Tribunals close their eyes to the frustration generated in these victims the very purpose of the establishment of Accident Tribunals would be defeated" "i had called for the file of this case from the Tribunal. But it was reported by the Tribunal that the file was not traceable. I therefore, adjourned the matter and directed the Tribunal to investigate as to how the file was not traceable. On 14th October, 1981, the Tribunal sent a report informing that in spite of the best efforts the file was not traceable. Explanation of Ahalmad was also sent alongwith the report. It is strange that the original file is not traceable in the Tribunal so far. However, luckily the certified copies of the orders passed the Court are already filed in this Court. A copy of the application made by the petitioner under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is also available on the file of this Court. "these observations made on, 10th November, 1981 show that the original file containing original petition filed by the claimant way back in April, 1979 was not available. Petitioner filed, a copy of the pet