( 1 ) RADHA Kishan. and others have come up inappeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act) assailing the order dated 29. 1 1. 80 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal), thereby dismissing the claim petition of the appellants. In nut shell, the facts are that Shri Rajinder Kumar Sachdeva met with a road accident caused by a two-wheeler scooter on 3. 7. 75 at about 4. 25 p. m. opposite WHO building. Ring Road. He died on 6. 7. 75 in the hospital. Rajinder Kumar was employed with the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking. He was 25 years old, unmarried at the time of his death. At about 4. 25 p. m. , the deceased alongwith his colleagues was walking on the kacha Patri in front of WHO building and was going towards Indraprastha Bus Depot. A person driving Scooter No. HRG-1975 came at a fast speed from the Ashram side and hit the deceased, because of the impact Rajinder Kumar fell down. He received severe head injuries. It is the case of the appellants that the driver of the scooter was negligent. He came on the Kacha Patri side, as a result of which the deceased sustained head injuries. His colleages, Baldev Raj and Daljit Singh, who were walking with him took him to the Irwin Hospital and lodged police report. Baldev Raj in his report gave details of the cause of accident and the number of the scooter.

( 2 ) THE parents of the deceased Rajinder Kumar filed the claim petition under Section 110-A of the Act claiming Rs. l lacs from the owner, and insurer of the offending vehicle. According to them, the deceased was working as Assistant Controller (Boiler) in the Indraprastha Station of the DESU, and was drawing salary of Rs. 950. 00 per month. If the deceased had been alive, he would have been promoted to a better pay scale in due course of time. It is in this background that they claimed compensation of Rs. 1 lac. This claim petition was contested by the owner of the vehicle on the ground that the vehicle HRG-1975 was not involved in the accident; that the police contacted him somewhere on 4. 7. 75 and he informed the police that his scooter was not involved. From the police record he found that there was an over-writing in the word c in the FIR. The police earlier correctly recorded the number as HRC-1975 but subsequently changed it to HRG-1975, in order to involve the respondent. Since the respondent denied the involvement of the scooter, therefore, the Insurance Company also took the plea that it was not liable for any compensation.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal after going through the evidence came to the conclusion that there was over writing in the number of scootor. He came to the conclusion that earlier the number was written as HRC-1975, it was subsequently changed to HRG-1975. Therefore, the respondent could not be held liable and dismissed the petition.

( 4 ) THE award of the Tribunal has been challenged inter alia on the ground that the Tribunal in a very casual manner discarded the testimony of S/shri Baldev Raj, Daljit Singh, S. S. Srivastava, Sohan Vir Singh. as well as of Lt. B. Pahuja, (RW-3 ). The Tribunal also ignored the site plan, dated 3. 7. 75 prepared and proved on record as Ex. PW-8/b. It is an admitted fact on record that Baldev Raj, Daljit Singh, and S. S. Srivastava are the eye witnesses of the occurence. Baldev Raj is the author of the FIR. He appeared as PW-4 and stated categorically that he saw one two-wheeler scooter bearing No. HRG-1975 Vespa make coming from Ashram Side in a fast speed. It hit the deceased Rajinder Kumar, who was walking on the foot path (kacha side ). He also testified that when the scooterist hit the deceased he was on the left side of the deceased. The deceased was dragged by the scooterist for about 4/5 feet. He noted the number of the scooter immediately. Since the deceased was bleeding profuosly, therefore, he took him to the dispensary of his office and there from the Doctor sent the decea