1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 24.10.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narsinghpur in M.V.C. No. 10/98, appellants have preferred this appeal against dismissal of their claim for vehicular death of Smt. Batti Bai.

2. According to factual matrix of the case, on 27.9.1997 at about 7:30 p.m. Batti Bai was coming back to her residence after giving the meal to her husband Daulatram Sharma, on reaching near to bridge of Basti on Gadarwara-Kareli Road sofa fell down on her head from Bus being Registration No. MP 20-E 9854 driven by respondent No.2 in rash and negligental manner. In the claim application, it was pleaded that on the roof of the bus excess luggage along with sofa was loaded and due to aforesaid rash and negligental driving a sofa fell down and by colliding with telephone pole fell over the head of Batti Bai. Resultantly, she got injured, became unconscious and taken to Kareli Hospital from where she was referred to Medical College, Jabalpur where during course of treatment on 8. 10.1997 she succumbed to death because of the injuries. The Police Kareli registered an offence against respondent No.2, under the relevant section of IPC.

3. Deceased Batti Bai was the wife of the appellant No.1 while mother of remaining appellants and looking after house hold-work, she was also doing the work of agriculture of the family. Rs. 25,000/- as spent on her treatment, the claim was initiated for compensation of Rs. 6,50,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 was the registered owner of the said offending bus while the same was insured with respondent No.3.

5. Respondent No.2 has pleaded in his reply that bus was rot driven in rash and negligental manner, a sofa set never fell down on the head of the deceased and that was not the cause of death. He denied the accident by his bus. He further pleaded that on admission of deceased in the hospital, it was stated that accident was caused on loading the luggage of the bus and police was not informed immediately on 27.9.1997, but it was reported on 8.10.1997 at a very belated stage. According to him, accident took place in the bath room at her residence as she slipped and by making false story this claim case has been preferred only to get the compensation on wrong premises.

6. Respondent No.3, in his reply denied all the allegations made by the appellants and submitted that respondent No.2 was not having valid and effective licence to drive the bus and in violation of terms and conditions of the policy sofa set was loaded on the roof of the bus. So, Insurance Company is nut liable to pay any compensation. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

7. On appreciation of evidence the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition by holding that accident caused by bus was not proved and appellant were also directed to refund Rs. 50,000/- to respondent No.3, as it was given on the principle of no fault liability at the early stage of proceedings.

8. Counsel for the appellants Shri Ajay Sen submitted that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence according to settled principles. While the offending act of bus and its driver was proved by eye witness Rakesh (CW 2) and besides this by papers of criminal case (Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-5) i.e. FIR. Tehrir Spot map, seizure memo and post mortem report. According to him, on inquiry of tehrir an offence under section 279 and 337 of IPC was registered at Police Station Kareli on 13.10.1997 so it cannot be said that such an accident did not take place, by ignoring the evidence and aforesaid circumstances and also contrary to record their claim was dismissed by the Tribunal.

9. He further submitted that deceased Batti Bai was looking after the house-hold work as well as agriculture of family and due to untimely death of her, appellants have been deprived from love and affection and also suffered aforesaid loss and prayed for awarding the adequate amount by allowing this appeal.

10. While on