Hon'ble Anil Kumar Sharma, J.—The parents of deceased Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, have challenged the award dated 27.8.1997 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Deoria in MACP No. 42 of 1992, whereby the claim petition filed by them for an award of Rs. 7,48,000/- on account of death of their son in the instant motor accident, had been dismissed.

2. During pendency of the appeal, both the appellants have died and in place of the appellant No. 1, his two sons Vijay Kumar Tiwari and Sanjay Tiwari have been substituted in the appeal vide order dated 10.1.2007 and they are legal representatives of appellant No. 2 also.

3. It appears that on 18.11.1991 at about 12 O’ clock in the noon, Pradeep Kumar was going on cycle on Kasiya-Tamkuhi road, then he was knocked down by the driver of bus registration No. UTX 5639 owned by the respondent by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. 21 years’ old Pradeep Kumar was taken to Kasiya for medical treatment but on account of his serious condition, he was shifted to Medical College, Gorakhpur. He was also medically treated at Varanasi but on account of the injuries, he suffered death on 28.1.1992. Parents of the deceased filed claim petition alleging that the deceased was running a scooter repairing shop in Dharamshala Bazar, Gorakhpur and his monthly income was Rs. 1500/-. A sum of Rs. 60,000/- were spent in his medical treatment in the said hospital. Report of the accident was lodged with police against the driver of the bus No. UTX 5639 and the police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the driver.

4. The respondent contested the claim totally denying the factum of accident. He has stated that he and the claimants are residents of the same village and the claimants are inimical to him on account of election rivalry because in Gram Pradhan election he has defeated father of the deceased twice i. e. in the year 1982 and 1988. Ere that Shyam Tiwari, uncle of claimant No. 1 fought election of Gram Pradhan with the respondent in the year 1972 and he too was defeated. It was further contended that in the year 1987-88 claimant No. 1 has forcibly set up flour mill in the land of Gram Sabha and as Pradhan of the village he has filed a report under Section 122-B of U.P. Act 1 of 1951 and pursuant thereto he was evicted. The case of the respondent is that on account of this enmity, his bus has been falsely implicated in the case which was not in working condition on the alleged date of accident as its tail crone had broken and the bus was repaired by Ram Autar Mistri in Kasiya. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues :

1- D;k fnukad 18-11-91 dks yxHkx 12 cts fnu esa dl;k reMqgh jksM ij ogn xzke HkfB;k vUrxZr Fkkuk rqdZikVh eksVj okgu cl ua0 ;w0Vh0,Dl 5639 dks vlko/kkuh rFkk mrkoysiu ls pyk;s tkus ds dkj.k dksbZ nq?kZVuk ?kfVr gqbZ ftlesa ;kphx.k ds iq= iznhi dqekj frokjh dks pksVs vkbZ vkSj bUgha pksVksa ds ifj.kkkeLo:i mudh e`R;q gks x;h\

2- D;k ;kphx.k foi{kh ls dksbZ izfrdj izkIr djus ds gdnkj gS\ ;fn gks rks fdruk\

5. The claimants examined claimant No. 1 as P.W.1 and also produced Sita Ram as P.W.2. They have filed various papers pertaining to medical treatment of the deceased, FIR, site plan, postmortem examination report and charge-sheet etc. The respondent examined himself as D.W.1 and has also produced Muneev Singh as D.W.2 and Ram Autar Mistri as D.W.3. After considering the evidence on record and hearing parties’ counsel, learned Tribunal decided issue No. 1 against the claimants holding that they have failed to prove that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the respondent’s bus and consequently the claim petition was dismissed. Aggrieved the claimants have come up in the present appeal.

6. We have heard Sri A.B. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri R.K. Shahi appearing for the respondent and perused the impugned award as also the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties.

7. Lear