Hon’ble Anil Kumar Sharma, J.—The appellants have challenged the award dated 4.1.2013 passed by M.A.C.T./Special Judge (D.D.A.) Jalaun at Orai in M.A.C.P. No. 151 of 2011: Parashuram and others v. Ram Lakhan Rajawat and another, whereby their claim petition for an award of compensation on account of death of Praddhumna Singh Pal alias Monu in motor accident had been rejected.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned award.

3. The appellants alleged in the claim petition that on 5.5.2011, deceased-Praddhumna Singh Pal alias Monu was going to attend the marriage alongwith his father from the Village-Bhepta to Sunaya and when their motorcycle reached at Tigara road, the driver of tractor registration No. MP-07-A.A.-3825, driving the vehicle rashly and negligently came from the opposite side and dashed with the motorcycle. In the accident, Praddhumna Singh Pal alias Monu suffered grievous injuries. He was taken to Medical Hospital, Jhansi, where he succumbed in the morning of 6.5.2011. The appellants, being parents, grand-mother, brother and sister of the deceased filed claim petition against the owner and insurer of the aforesaid tractor. The owner in his written statement denied the involvement of his vehicle stating that in the FIR neither his name nor registration number of his tractor had been mentioned. The claim petition has been filed on the basis of false and incorrect facts. The insurer of the vehicle also denied the contention of the claimants taking alternative plea of plying the tractor in violation of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy. The Tribunal framed 6 issues for adjudication. Issue No. 1 was factual issue about the accident, involvement of tractor registration No. M.P.-07-A.A.-3825 and its rash and negligent driving by its driver. The claimants filed documentary evidence and examined Parashuram Pal-P.W.1. The owner of the vehicle produced himself as D.W.-1 and the Insurance Company filed prescription of Dr. Dinesh Rajpoot. After hearing the parties’ counsel and perusal of evidence on record, the Tribunal found that no doubt the deceased suffered accidental injuries on 5.5.2011 at about 7.00 p.m. and he died later on, but the claimants have failed to prove the involvement of the tractor M.P.-07-A.A.-3825. Aggrieved appellants have come up in this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in appreciating the evidence on record in correct perspective and that the police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the tractor M.P.-07-A.A.-3825. He has further submitted that since the police has also found the driver of the aforesaid tractor guilty, therefore, the Tribunal has erroneously held that the accident did not take place on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor M.P.-07-A.A.-3825 by its driver.

5. The sole witness examined on behalf of claimants is claimant No. 1 i.e. the father of the deceased who was also accompanying his deceased son on motorcycle. This witness has reiterated the contention of claim petition stating involvement of the tractor M.P.-07-A.A.-3825 and its rash and negligent driving by its driver. However, in cross-examination he has stated that he has not mentioned registration number of the tractor, but simply noted model ‘855’ of the tractor. Similarly, he has admitted that he did not mention the name of the tractor owner Ram Lakhan, but has noted the name of Surendra Singh alias Dhapole Yadav as owner of the tractor. At other place, the witness has admitted that name of the tractor owner as mentioned by him in the claim petition is different than the FIR. Thus, from bare statement of claimant No. 1, the involvement of alleged offending tractor M.P.-07-A.A.-3825 could not be proved.

6. Now the question is whether claim petition is sustainable against the offending tractor simply on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted by the police after investi