JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the order dated 1.2.2000 in O.P. No.955 of 1996, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court) (for short "Tribunal"), Hyderabad, wherein the claim of the respondents 1 to 3 herein was allowed-in-part awarding compensation of Rs. 96,588/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed claim application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs. l,50,000/- for the death of the deceased Ramulu, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 4.6.1996. According to them, on that day the deceased parked his rickshaw on the footpath of the road near Sri Vijaya Electronics, Nallakunta, Hyderabad and that a jeep bearing No. AIY 5037, belonging to the appellant-Railways, driven in a rash and negligent manner at high speed by its driver, dashed against the rickshaw, resulting in injuries including fracture of both legs for which the deceased succumbed while undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. It is further pleaded that the deceased was aged 40 years and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as rickshaw puller and the claimants are dependent on the income of the deceased. 3. The appellant-Railways filed a counter before the Tribunal opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 4. On the strength of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial : (i) Whether the accident in question took place on 4.6.1996, due to rash and negligent driving of the Railway jeep bearing No. AIY 5037 by its driver? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation for the death of 1. Ramulu in the accident? If so, to what amount ? (iii) To what relief? 5. P.Ws.l and 2 were examined and Exs.A.l to A.8 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.W.l was examined and Exs.B.l and B.2 were marked on behalf of the appellant-Railways. 6. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the Tribunal gave finding on issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver. On issue No.2, the Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.96,588/-. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition. 7. On issue No.2, the Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.96,588/-. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition. 7. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant-Railways preferred the present appeal. 8. Arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant are heard. None appeared for the respondents. Records are perused. 9. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed CMA MP No.1481 of 2007 under Order 41 Rule 28 CPC seeking permission to produce five documents by way of additional evidence, as they are considered to be having relevancy and bearing over the dispute. They are permitted to be received in evidence and are marked ,. as Exs.B.3 to B.7. CMA MP No.1481 of 2007 is accordingly allowed. 10. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the claimants are not legal heirs of the deceased and the deceased died unmarried leaving behind no legal heirs and the claimants played fraud on the Court, as can be seen from the additional evidence now produced. He further contended that the criminal case against the driver ended in acquittal, as he was not connected with the accident at all. 11. The point for consideration is whether the claimants are legal heirs of the 12. In the claim application, the claimants I and 2 are described as sons and the third claimant is shown as daughter of the deceased Ramulu. It is significant to note that in the cause-title the name of Ramulu is subsequently interpolated in ink as father of claimants 2 and 3. There is no' reference to the mother of claimants, as• to whether she is alive or not, in the claim application. In the evidence, P.W.I, the first claimant, has disclosed the name of his father as Changaiah. He further stated that J. Ramulu is his father's brother. It is in his evidence that claimants 2 and 3 are his brother and sister. Thus, as per the evidence of P.W.1, the claimants are all children of Changaiah, who is brother of the deceased Ramulu. P.W.1 further admitted that the deceased was a bachelor. In cross-examination, P. W.I reiterated that the deceased is his father's younger brother. He admitted that in the petition he mentioned that the deceased is his father. Thus, as per the evidence of P.W.1, the claimants are all children of Changaiah, who is brother of the deceased Ramulu. P.W.1 further admitted that the deceased was a bachelor. In cross-examination, P. W.I reiterated that the deceased is his father's younger brother. He admitted that in the petition he mentioned that the deceased is his father. It is also in his evidence that his mother is alive. He denied the suggestion the deceased was staying with his uncle, as stated by him in Ex. A.1. EX. A.1-F.I.R. registered on the complaint given by the deceased Ramu/u himself shows that the deceased was residing at Door No.2-2-1075/23, Bathammakunta, Tilaknagar, Hyderabad, whereas the address of the claimants is stated to be 6-1-90/13-B, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. The fact that the deceased was staying at a different address falsifies the claim of the claimants that they have been residing with the deceased and were being maintained by him. It is suggested to P.W.l in the cross-examination that the claimants are not the legal heirs of the deceased and a false claim is made by them to get the compensation. Though PWI denied the suggestion, but he admitted that he cannot produce the legal heir certificate. On the other hand, the admissions of P.W.1 in the cross-examination itself go to show that the claimants are not the children of the deceased. The inquest report-Ex.A.2 also shows that the deceased was unmarried. In the statement given to police, marked as Ex.BA, the deceased stated that he is a bachelor and he is residing in the house of his uncle at Bathammakunta. The judgment in C.C. No.719 of 1998, marked as Ex.B.3, same is also marked as EX.B.1 shows that there was no evidence to the effect that the accused therein was the driver of the jeep and he caused the accident. Of course, the acquittal of the accused in criminal case does not have bearing in the claim proceedings for compensation, but before making any such claim, the applicants have to establish that they are the legal heirs of the deceased and were dependent on his income and, therefore, they are entitled to seek compensation. The evidence on record particularly the admissions of P.W.1 himself establish that the claimants are neither legal heirs nor dependents of the deceased and they were not even living together. The evidence on record particularly the admissions of P.W.1 himself establish that the claimants are neither legal heirs nor dependents of the deceased and they were not even living together. By falsely describing themselves as children of the deceased, the claimants have tried to mislead the Court and played fraud for the purpose of claiming compensation, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant. 13. In the circumstances and, for the reasons stated above, it is held that the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. The award dated 1.2.2000 passed by the Tribunal in O.P. No.955 of 1996 in favour of the claimants is set aside. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.