JUDGMENT Sham Sunder, J. - This appeal is directed against the award dated 07.02.1995, rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, vide which it granted compensation of Rs. 25,000/- with interest, in favour of the claimants, only under the No Fault Liability Clause, which was applicable, in an un-amended form, at the relevant time. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on the night intervening 5/6.8.1992, Mohan Lal (now deceased) along with Jagdish, pillion rider, was riding a scooter, and was coming from the side of Faridabad to his village Pawta, and when he reached near Asha Farm, he was hit by a truck bearing registration No. HYG- 1590, which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1-driver-cum-owner thereof, from the front side. Mohan Lal sustained fatal injuries, in the said accident, and succumbed to the same. The matter was reported to Police Station, Defence Colony, New Delhi. The police of Police Station Sadar, Ballabgarh, was also informed, but no action was taken. It was further stated that the deceased was aged about 42 years, and retired as a Subedar. He was working as a Supplier of building material, in his own truck. His monthly income was about Rs. 5000/-. The claimants, being the widow, minor sons and minor daughter respectively of the deceased, filed a claim petition, claiming compensation. 3. Respondent No. 1, the owner-cum-driver, in his written statement, stated that his truck was standing, on the un-metaled portion (Katcha portion) of the road, near Asha Farm, with parking lights on. It was further stated that the scooterist and the pillion rider, were under the influence of liquor, and riding the same, in an intoxicated condition and in a zig zag manner. On account of this, the rider of the scooter, struck the same, against his truck. It was further stated that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent riding of the scooter, by the rider of the same. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. Respondent No. 2, the Insurance Company of the truck, in its written statement, pleaded that no cause of action arose to the claimants to file the petition. It was further pleaded that the claim petition was bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. It was stated that the driver of the truck was not having a valid driving licence. 4. Respondent No. 2, the Insurance Company of the truck, in its written statement, pleaded that no cause of action arose to the claimants to file the petition. It was further pleaded that the claim petition was bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. It was stated that the driver of the truck was not having a valid driving licence. It was denied that the accident took place, on account of the rash or negligent driving of the truck, by respondent No. 1. It was also denied that the deceased sustained fatal injuries, in the said accident. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, on 08.03.1994 :- "1. Whether the death of Shri Mohan Lal son of Devi Sahai was caused in a vehicular accident on the night intervening 5th/6th August, 1992 at about 11.20.12.00 midnight at Sohna Road near the village Pawta on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No. HYG-1590 by respondent No. 1 ? OPP 2. If issue No. 1, is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ? OPP 3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable ? OPP 4. Whether the respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid driving licence on the date of the alleged accident ? OPR-3 5. Whether the claim petition has been filed in collusion with the respondent No. 1 ? OPR-2 6. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPR.2 7. Relief." 6. The parties led evidence. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the Claims Tribunal, came to the conclusion, that the accident did not take place, on account of the rash or negligent act of the driver of the truck. On the other hand, it was held by the Claims Tribunal, that the accident took place on account of the rash or negligent riding of the scooter, by Mohan Lal. It was further held by the Claims Tribunal that the claimants were only entitled to the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- under No Fault Liability Clause. Accordingly, the aforesaid compensation, was granted in their favour. 7. Feeling aggrieved, against the award dated 07.02.1995 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, the instant appeal, was filed by the claimants-appellants. 8. It was further held by the Claims Tribunal that the claimants were only entitled to the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- under No Fault Liability Clause. Accordingly, the aforesaid compensation, was granted in their favour. 7. Feeling aggrieved, against the award dated 07.02.1995 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, the instant appeal, was filed by the claimants-appellants. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties,and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellants, contended that the Claims Tribunal, was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the accident did not take place, on account of the rash or negligent driving of the truck, in question, by respondent No. 1. He further contended that sufficient evidence was produced by the claimants, to prove this factum, but the same was ignored, without any reason, by the Claims Tribunal. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. Jagdish Chand, is the star witness of the claimants, who appeared in the witness box, as PW2. No doubt, Jagdish Chand, when appeared in the witness box, as PW2, he stated that he was the pillion rider of the scooter and the accident took place, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck, by respondent No. 1. Ex.P2, is the postmortem report. Had Jagdish Chand, been the pillion rider of the scooter, being ridden by Mohan Lal, his name would have been certainly recorded in the copy of the post mortem report, as a person, who brought the injured to the hospital. However, the name of Jagdish Chand is not recorded, in the said document. On the other hand, against the column of brought and identified, the names of Satpal and Suresh Kumar are written. On the top of left hand side of this document, the name of Khem Chand, is recorded. Jagdish Chand, also stated that he sustained injuries, in the same accident. During the course of cross-examination, he admitted that he got himself medico- legally examined, from the doctor. However, he did not produce a copy of the medical report, to substantiate his version, that he also sustained injuries, in the said accident. Jagdish Chand, also stated that he sustained injuries, in the same accident. During the course of cross-examination, he admitted that he got himself medico- legally examined, from the doctor. However, he did not produce a copy of the medical report, to substantiate his version, that he also sustained injuries, in the said accident. No FIR was lodged by Jagdish Chand, with regard to the accident, which according to him, took place, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck, in question, by respondent No. 1. On the other hand, he stated that he moved an application before the SSP, Faridabad. The original application dated 7.8.1992, is Ex.P1, However, no official from the office of the SSP, Faridabad, was summoned along with the original record. Under these circumstances, it can be said, that this application, was never moved by Jagdish Chand, before the SSP, Faridabad, but it was kept by him, in original. It might have been created later on, by him. Even if, it is assumed, that no FIR was registered, a criminal complaint could be filed by Jagdish Chand, or the brother of the deceased, regarding the accident. They, however, did not do so. From Ex.P.3, copy of the Daily Diary Report, it is evident that Khem Chand, brother of Mohan Lal, got him admitted, in the hospital. During the course of cross-examination, Jagdish Chand, admitted that he is the nephew of the deceased. He was, therefore, interested in the deceased. The aforesaid circumstances, when taken together, clearly disprove the presence of Jagdish Chand, at the time of accident. The Claims Tribunal was, thus, right in disbelieving the statement of Jagdish Chand (PW2). 10. On the other hand, Vikram Singh, owner-cum-driver of the truck, when appeared, in the witness box, as RW1, in clear cut-terms, stated that he had parked his truck, on the kutcha portion of the road, with parking lights on, and a scooterist came from behind, at a very high speed, and rammed into the truck. He also stated that the patrol party reached the place of accident, and after verifying the facts, came to the conclusion that he was not at fault, and , therefore, no case was registered against him. No suggestion was put to him during the course of cross-examination, that the truck was not parked on the un-metaled portion side of the road. No suggestion was put to him during the course of cross-examination, that the truck was not parked on the un-metaled portion side of the road. No suggestion was also put to him, during the course of cross-examination, that the parking lights of the truck, were not on. No suggestion was put to him, during the course of cross- examination, that Mohan Lal, rider of the scooter, did not strike his scooter, against the stationery truck, with lights on, resulting into injuries on his person, and leading to his death. Since the aforesaid version given by Vikram Singh, RW1, in his examination-in-chief, was not challenged, during the course of his cross-examination, the same remained un-rebutted. It means that part of the statement made by Vikram Singh, in his examination-in-chief, that the truck was stationary on the kutcha side of the road, with parking lights of the same on, and Mohan Lal, scooterist rammed the scooter into the same, was deemed to have been admitted, by the claimants. The Claims Tribunal was thus, right in holding that the claimants failed to prove that the accident took place, on account of the rash or negligent driving of the truck, in question, by respondent No. 1. In this view of the matter, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. The findings of the Claims Tribunal, on issue No. 1, being correct are affirmed. 11. The findings of the Claims Tribunal, on issue No. 2, are also correct. Since the Claims Tribunal held that the driver of the truck, in question, was neither rash nor negligent, in driving the same, but the accident took place on account of the rash or negligent act of the rider of the scooter, the claimants were not entitled to compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but were only entitled to compensation, in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as the accident took place out of the use of a motor vehicle. The findings, on issue No. 2, being correct, are affirmed. 12. For the reasons recorded hereinbefore, the appeal, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.