Judgment H. S. Bedi and J JJ. 1. This appeal has been filed by Jagdish Kaur and others, claimants, whose claim petition filed under sec. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that a case of rash and negligent driving against Raghbir Singh, respondent no.1, driver of truck No. OIL 3266 had not been proved. 2. ). As per the facts of the case, on 12.9.1988 Gursewak Singh (the deceased)who was working as a Pharmacist, was going on his scooter No. PBI 9052 with his wife Jagdish Kaur (claimant No.1) and as he reached village Phul at about 6.45 p. m. , the scooter met with an accident with truck No. DIL 3266 being driven by Raghbir Singh in which both, Gursewak Singh and his wife Jagdish Kaur suffered serious injuries. Gursewak Singh was removed to the hospital, where he was declared dead. The D. D. R. was also recorded at the instance of Som Nath, son of Bachan Dass, an eyewitness, in which it was stated that the accident had not happened on account of any negligence on the part of the truck driver. The claimants nevertheless filed a petition claiming a sum of Rs.8,40,000 as compensation under secs. 110-A and 92-A of the Act. 3. The respondents controverted the claim of the claimants and pleaded that the accident had happened as Gursewak Singh was driving the scooter in a zigzag manner and accordingly hit the truck coming from the opposite side. 4. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed: " (1) Whether the deceased Gursewak singh died as a result of rash and negligent driving of truck No. DIL 3266 driven by respondent Raghbir Singh as pleaded? OPA (2) Whether claimants are entitled to compensation, if so and to what amount and from whom? OPA (3) Relief. " 5. After recording finding on issue No.1, the claim application was dismissed by the Tribunal leading to the filing of the present appeal. 6. Mr. Daldeep Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants, has argued that the presence of Bachan Dass at the scene of accident had been admitted on all sides and his statement when read with the statement of Jagdish Kaur, who was the pillion rider on the scooter, which the deceased was driving, clearly proved the case on the question of negligence. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Sukant Gupta, learned Deputy advocate General, Punjab has however, argued that a bare reading of the D. D. R. recorded at the instance of aforesaid eyewitness Som Nath revealed that the truck driver was not at fault in causing the accident and the presence of Jagdish Kaur, who had allegedly been with her husband, had also not been proved as there was no injury on her. 8. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 9. It will be seen that the best evidence in this case would have been that of Jagdish Kaur but her presence at the place of accident has not been proved. It is her case that she had sustained injuries in the accident and had become unconscious and had regained consciousness the next day. If that be so, Jagdish Kaur would also have been removed to a hospital along with her husband by her relatives including Bachan dass and Som Nath, who were the grandfather and uncle respectively of the deceased. Admittedly, there is no evidence to show that she had been so removed or ever examined by a doctor. Her presence, at the site, therefore, becomes doubtful. I further find that the D. D. R. was admittedly got recorded by Som Nath, the uncle of the deceased, clearly belies the statement of the claimant. He stated that the deceased was coming from the side opposite the truck on his scooter driving in a zigzag manner and the accident had not taken place due to the fault on the part of the driver of the truck. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the claim application has been rightly dismissed by the Tribunal. 10. The accident happened in the year 1988 and the appeal has been pending in this court since 1991. In the meanwhile, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, has been repealed and under sec. 140 of Motor vehicles Act, 1988, a claimant shall now be entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000 in all under the no fault liability clause, in view of the judgment reported as Amba Lal V/s. Union of India, 1998 ACJ 279 (Rajasthan ). This amount is accordingly due. The entire amount shall be paid to Jagdish Kaur, the widow of the deceased expeditiously. With the above modification, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. c