1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 01.01.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Veraval in M.A.C.P. No.200/2003 whereby, the claim petition was dismissed.
2. The aforesaid claim petition was preferred in connection with the vehicular accident that took place on 27.06.2003 involving a Jeep bearing registration No. GJ-17-A-8534 insured with respondent no.2-Insurance Company and in which Vishal Kanubhai Pandya had expired.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. Having gone through the impugned award, I find that the Tribunal has dealt with every aspect of the case in detail. It appears from the record that in the FIR registered in connection with the alleged accident, opponent no.1 has not been named as the driver of the vehicle. It also appears that though it was claimed that the deceased was travelling along with his mother at the relevant time but, the mother (applicant no.2) was not examined as a witness for reasons best known to the applicants though it was claimed that she is an eye-witness to the accident. Thus, the applicants had failed to establish their case before the Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant was not in a position to point out any illegality or impropriety having been committed by the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by the Tribunal in its award and hence, find no reasons to entertain this appeal.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is summarily dismissed.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/* Top