By the Court.—The appellants have challenged the award dated 2.4.2012 passed by MACT/Additional District Judge (Court No. 11, Agra in MACP No. 177 of 2008, whereby the claim petition of the appellants under Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act had been dismissed.

2. The claimants filed the claim petition alleging that on 3.3.2007 deceased Rampal parking his bike near Manoj Dhaba on Fatehabad Road, Agra was talking with Constable Ramesh Babu, then at about 4 p.m. the driver of Jeep registration No. UP 80M/6760 driving the vehicle rashly and negligently knocked down the deceased and he succumbed to the injuries. It was alleged that deceased was hale and hearty man of 32 years and was whole-sale fruit seller and his monthly income was Rs. 10,000/-. The widow, children and parents of the deceased filed claim petition for an award of Rs. 18,87,400/-.They contended that the offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2, insured with respondent No. 3 and at the time of accident it was being driven by respondent No. 1. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 denying the factum of accident stated that on the date of accident the alleged offending Jeep was insured with respondent No. 3. They further contended that in the FIR it was stated that the accident took place with tractor-trolly, while they are owner and driver of the jeep, so the petition is liable to be dismissed. The respondent No. 3 also denied the allegations of the claimants and alleged collusion between the claimants and owner of the vehicle and that the driver of the jeep had no valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. The claimants examined widow of the deceased Gaura Devi PW 1, brother of deceased Nathi Lal PW 2 and alleged eye-witness Bhoop Singh PW 3. The learned Tribunal after evidence of parties and hearing argument has dismissed the claim petition as stated above. Aggrieved, the claimants have come up in appeal.

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

4. The learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in correct perspective and has erroneously rejected the testimony of eye-witness Bhoop Singh PW 3, who has proved the factum of accident as also the rash and negligent driving of Jeep driver. Findings on issue No. 1 have been challenged on behalf of the appellant. This issue was framed as under :

1- D;k fnukad 3&3&2007 dks e`rd jkeiky vkxjk Qrsgkckn jksM ij fLFkr eukst /kkck ds lkeus lMd fdukjs ij viuh ekVj lkbZfdy ij cSB dj vU; fdly ls ckrphr dj jgk Fkk rHkh le; djhc 6-30 cts 'kke Qrsgkckn dh vksj ls rsth o ykijokgh ls vkrh thi la[;k ;w0ih0 80,e@6760 us e``rd dks Vddj ekjnh] ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i mldh e`R;q gks x;h \

5. The learned Tribunal has found that the report of the accident was lodged by Constable Ramesh Babu wherein he has noted that the deceased was hit by an unknown tractor-trolley which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, while he was talking with some one sitting on his parked motor-cycle. Contrary to this report Bhoop Singh PW 3 the alleged eye-witness examined by the claimants has stated that the deceased was hit by driver Shahzad who was driving jeep UP 80M/6760 rashly and negligently while he was overtaking a tractor. He has further stated that he knew Rampal from before, but had gone to distribute milk and he told about the accident to Natthi Lal brother of deceased two months after the accident when he visited his village. Natthi Lal PW 2 has stated that the accident was seen by Bhoop Singh and two months after the accident he told him about the vehicle, which caused the accident. He has further stated that wrong report of the accident was lodged by Constable Ramesh Babu. He has admitted in cross-examination that he lodged the report with the police two months after the accident, but no case was registered thereon. From the evidence adduced by the claimants it transpires that Bhoop Singh