JUDGMENT V.P. Mathur, J. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 16-2-1978, passed by the District Judge, Azamgarh, acting as a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in case No. 82 of 1976. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the applicants before him had failed to prove that the opposite party had caused the accident and consequent death of their father and as such he dismissed the claim petition with costs. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the matter are that a claim petition was moved before the District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Azamgarh by the four sons and heirs of Sarju Yadav, who died as a result of an accident caused by a Motor Vehicle. According to the allegations of the petitioners, on 10-3-76, at about 4 p.m., their father Sarju Yadav, who was resident of village Bhaluwana, Pargana Gopalpur. Tehsil Sagri, district Azamgarh, was standing on the Patri of Azamgarh-Faizabad road in village Hichchanpatti, police station Kandharapur, when opposite party Dinesh Chandra Rai came on a Scooter which he was driving rashly, negligently and at a great speed and struck it against Sarju Yadav from behind. The unfortunate man fell down and the vehicle passed through over him and he died on the spot. The opposite party Dinesh Chandra Rai, however, went away from the spot alongwith his Scooter. An F.I.R. of the matter was lodged by the Chaukidar Radhey Lal and the police immediately arrived at the spot and started investigation. Postmortem on the dead body was conducted. The applicants tried to lodge a report naming Dinesh Chandra Rai as an accused but their report was not taken down and, therefore, they sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police on the basis of which a criminal case was started against Dinesh Chandra Rai. They filed the present claim petition with the allegation that they were entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of compensation. 3. The learned Judge in the court below, however, came to the conclusion, after assessment of the entire evidence on record that was adduced, that it was not proved satisfactorily that the accident was caused by a Scooter. On the contrary, there was evidence to show that it was a motor-cycle, which was responsible for this accident He also came to the conclusion that the opposite party Dinesh Chandra was not responsible for this occurrence. On the contrary, there was evidence to show that it was a motor-cycle, which was responsible for this accident He also came to the conclusion that the opposite party Dinesh Chandra was not responsible for this occurrence. It was some unknown person who bad committed this occurrence and had run away from the spot. With these findings he disposed of the claim petition and dismissed it. 4. I summoned the record of the criminal revision No. 1518 of 1979 Hanuman Yadav v. Dinesh Chandra Rai. This revision was filed against the judgment and order passed by the III Munsif-Magistrate, 1st Class, Azamgarh, on 30-6-79 acquitting Dinesh Chandra Rai on the charges under Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC. The learned Magistrate's judgment shows that according to him the two eye witnesses, namely Hanuman Yadav and Ram Charan not reliable and were perhaps not present on the spot. He, therefore, acquitted the accused by the judgment dated 30 6-79. Then a revision was preferred before the High Court and was disposed of vide order dated 21-7-80. It was rejected. This is about the criminal case. 5. Now coming to the present case, again Hanuman Yadav and Ram Chandra have been examined in support of the applicant's version. On the contrary, on the defence side, the defendant himself entered into the witness-box alongwith two other witnesses. The learned Judge in the court below had an occasion to mark the demeanour of the witnesses. He had analysed the statements of Hanuman Yadav and Ram Charan. He has considered the F.I. R. lodged by the Chaukidar with whom no enmity is proved or asserted and he has also considered that two days after the occurrence the complaint to the Superintendent of Police was made although while on the way to the place where they had gone to cremate the dead-body of their father, they passed through another Thana where the report of the incident could be lodged one day after, but they did not lodge it. 6. I have gone through the testimony of both Hanuman Yadav and Ram Charan and find that Hanuman Yadav has bungled in his evidence on a number of points. In the report lodged by the Chaukidar the vehicle which had caused the occurrence was mentioned as a Motor-Cycle. In his examination-in-chief, as the learned Judge noted, Hanuman Yadav used the word 'Motor Cycle' to do note the vehicle concerned. In the report lodged by the Chaukidar the vehicle which had caused the occurrence was mentioned as a Motor-Cycle. In his examination-in-chief, as the learned Judge noted, Hanuman Yadav used the word 'Motor Cycle' to do note the vehicle concerned. It was only during the cross-examination that for the first time he came to say that it was Scooter. There is a difference between the two and now this difference is very clear even to the villagers. It cannot, therefore, be said that the mention of Motor Cycle in the statement-in-chief was under confusion. On the contrary, it shows that in this respect the report lodged by the Chaukidar was correct. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the opposite party was possessed of any Scooter or Motor Cycle at any point of time It was contended by Hanuman Yadav that the Motor Cycle or Scooter had been given to the younger brother of the defendant in his marriage and that it was seen for the first time by Hanuman Yadav at the house of Tirath Ram where he had gone in a feast and where the defendant had also come. There in presence of Ramesh Chandra, Suresh Chandra and Gangaram and many other persons, the defendant had told that this scooter had been received by way of dowry in the marriage of his younger brother. None of those persons has been examined as a witness in support of that contention and during the cross-examination the defendant has completely denied having received any Scooter by way of dowry in the marriage of his younger brother. No attempt has been made to trace this Scooter. Even if it was unregistered vehicle, the police could have recovered it from the house of the accused but this has not been done. I have very carefully perused the entire evidence on record and I am in agreement with the learned Judge of the Tribunal that the appellants had miserably failed to prove that the accident was a result of the driving of the scooter or motor cycle by the defendant. This being so, the basis for the claim did not exist and it was rightly dismissed. 7. There is no force in this appeal, which is also dismissed with costs.