Hon’ble Anil Kumar Sharma, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 14.3.2001 passed by MACT/Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Aligarh in MACP No. 384 of 1998 whereby the claim petition of the appellants has been dismissed.

2. It appears that deceased Ajay Kumar was driver on Tanker No. UP 85C-9127, which developed some defect on 1.10.1998 at about 11 p.m. While crossing the Bajna bridge on NH-2 within circle of P.S. Narhauli, Mathura, while it was being repaired by Ajay Kumar and his helper, the driver of truck No. HR 29C-6755 said to be driving the vehicle rashly and negligently hit the stationery tanker from behind, causing serious injuries to driver and persons travelling in the truck. The helper of the truck died at the spot. The truck driver leaving the vehicle at the spot made his escape good. Injured Ajay Kumar also died later on. It was stated in the petition that 25-years’ old deceased was earning Rs. 6000/- per month. The parents of deceased Ajay Kumar claiming to be dependant on him, filed claim petition for an award of Rs. 8.50 lacs. against driver of truck and owner and insurer of both the vehicles. The claim petition was contested by opposite parties except the alleged driver of the truck.

3. The claimants examined Lekhraj PW 1 and Vigyan Singh PW 2 (help of tanker) in support of their case and filed several photo-copies of documents. The learned Tribunal after hearing parties’ counsel has dismissed the claim petition mainly on the ground that in order to get compensation the claimants have made material interpolations in the photo-stat copies of documents filed by them and could not prove their case. Aggrieved the appellants have come up in appeal.

4. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and respondent No. 2 and perused the record of the case carefully.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the impugned award has been passed by the Tribunal without considering the evidence on record; that it failed to consider that Bhutt Singh, driver of offending truck did not file any written statement; that the Tribunal has held that truck No. HR 29C-6744 had dashed with vehicle UP 85C-9727 and driver Ajay Kumar died in the accident and even then the claim petition had been erroneously dismissed.

6. The claimants being the parents of unmarried deceased Ajay Kumar have filed the claim petition under Sections 140 and 166 Motor Vehicles Act. They have stated that the deceased suffered death on the spot. In order to succeed in a petition under Section 166 of the Act, it is imperative on the part of the claimants to prove that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and the deceased has not contributed in the accident.

7. The claimants have examined Vigyan Singh PW 2, helper of the deceased who had also allegedly sustained injuries in the accident. This witness has claimed himself to be eye-witness of the accident. He has stated in his deposition before the Tribunal that he was also injured in the accident, and had taken Ajay Kumar to District Hospital, Mathura where he died but in cross-examination he stated that he did not get himself medically examined in the hospital. This statement of this witness belies his stand that he was present at the spot. The claimants have stated that deceased succumbed to the injuries at the spot but PW 2 does not support this claim. If this witness has received injuries in the accident then why did he not examine himself, if at all he had gone to the hospital? His medico-legal examination report would have lent support of his being eye-witness of the accident. It is noteworthy that name of this witness also does not find place in the charge-sheet submitted by the police against driver of offending truck named Mohan. Thus, it is difficult to place reliance on his testimony about manner of accident. Vigyan Singh PW 2 claims himself to be employed as helper on the tanker which