By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellants – original claimants have challenged the judgment and order dated 18th March 2000 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.3), Kheada at Nadiad in MAC Petition No.208 of 1991 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants. 2 The short facts of the present appeal are that the claimants have filed the aforesaid claim petition contending that because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 of his vehicle bearing No.GQG 9207 it trampled down deceased Shankarbhai before turning turtle on 21.1.1991 at about 1.00 PM at village Changaa and because of said accident Shakarbhai received serious injuries due to which he died. It is the case of the claimants that deceased Shankarbhai was earning Rs.30 per day by doing agriculture labour work. They, therefore, filed aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation from the respondents jointly and severally.
3. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record has rejected the claim petition vide impugned judgment and order. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the original claimants.
4. While rejecting the claim petition, the Tribunal has observed in paragraph 10 to the effect that from the oral evidence of the witnesses it is not established that deceased died in the accident involving the tempo of respondent No.1. The Tribunal further observed that looking to the deposition of respondent No.1 it appears that on the date of the accident, respondent No.1 has not gone anywhere carrying passengers in the tempo nor the tempo got involved in any accident. The Tribunal further observed that on the date of the accident the injured was not shifted to Dr Joshi's hospital in the tempo of respondent No.1 and therefore even if the statement of respondent No.1 was not recorded by the investigating officer it is not proved that deceased Shankarbhai Lakhabhai had died due to the injuries caused in the accident involving the vehicle in question. The Tribunal, after considering the statement of respondent No.1, certificate issued by Dr Joshi, deposition of Raysingbhai, complaint and the deposition of respondent No.1 has held that it is not proved that deceased has died due to the injuries received in an accident.
Considering the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal, the same is just and proper and no interference is called for. The appeal has no merits and therefore the same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd