The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing the involvement of the vehicle in the accident and complying with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding surrender of the vehicle and cancellation of registration and permit.

Heard Ms. Maria Kirwani, learned counsel holding brief of Mr.C.B.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant and perused the record.

2. The appeal has been filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 31.1.2004 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 15 of 2001 whereby a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the respondent-claimant against the appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants are the owner of the bus bearing registration No. UHN 1942. The alleged accident had taken place on 15.6.2001. At the time of accident the aforesaid vehicle was off-road as it met with an accident on 15.4.2001. The bus had collided with a tree on 15.4.2001 due to break failure and was in the workshop.

4. It is further submitted that in the F.I.R. incomplete details of vehicle were mentioned and complete registration number was not given. It is also submitted that the alleged vehicle was not seized from the place of occurrence of the accident, as such the involvement of the said vehicle is highly doubtful.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was accompanied with two other children. In case any such alleged accident had taken place then all the three children should have sustained injuries. It was not practicably possible that only the deceased was hit by the alleged vehicle due to which she had sustained injuries and had died.

6. The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the aforesaid pleadings in the right perspective and has wrongly awarded the compensation against the appellants.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant, on the other hand, submitted that no such plea that the bus was off-road as it had met with an accident on 15.4.2001 was taken in the written statement filed before the Tribunal by the appellants.

8. It is also submitted that in case the vehicle was off-road, the appellants were required to surrender the registration certificate and apply for cancellation of registration as per Section 55 of Motor Vehicles Act.

9. It is also submitted that the appellants should have applied for cancellation of permit as well in view of Section 86 of Motor Vehicles Act. Before the Tribunal no certificate of surrender of vehicle or cancellation of registration and cancellation of permit was filed, as such the learned Tribunal has rightly, on the basis of evidence produced before it, has come to conclusion that the alleged accident had taken place with the vehicle bearing registration No. UHN 1942 in which the deceased Km. Parvati aged 7 years had sustained injuries and died.

10. I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and gone through the records.

11. The learned Tribunal while deciding the claim had framed certain issues which on reproduction read as under:

Þ1& D;k fnukad 15&6&2001 dks egewnkckn jkeiqj&eFkqjk jksM ij ckck dqVh ds ikl cgn Fkkuk egewnkckn tuin lhrkiqj esa le; yxHkx 3&00 cts fnu esa cl la[;k ;w0,p0,u0&1942 ds pkyd us vius okgu dks rsth o ykijokgh ls pykrs gq, lM+d ds QqVikFk ij tk jgh 7 o"khZ; dq0 ikoZrh dks VDdj ekj nh] ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i vkbZ pksVksa ds dkj.k dq0 ikoZrh dh nq?kZVuk LFky ij eqR;q gks x;h Fkh\

2& D;k cl la[;k ;w0,p0,u0 1942 fnukad 15&6&2001 dks vfLrRo esa ugha Fkh tSlk fd fyf[kr dFku esa dgk x;k gS\ ;fn gkWa rks mldk izHkko\

3& izfrdj dh fdl /kujkf'k dks] ;fn dksbZ gks] rks ;kph ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS ,oa fdlls\Þ

12. While deciding the said issues learned Tribunal has come to conclusion that the deceased Km. Parvati was hit by the Bus No. UHN 1942 on 15.6.2001 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle.

13. The learned Tribunal has come to conclusion that PW-2 Hari Lal was an eye-witness to the said accident and his presence at the place of occurrence is not doubted.

14. The police had also filed the charge sh