JUDGMENT 1. - This civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is preferred against the judgment and award dated 15th March, 2000 passed by the learned Tribunal in M.A.C. No. 308/99 whereby claim petition has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12th October, 1998, deceased Ramesh Chandra Verma alongwith two employees of the company in his company car were going to Udaipur from Jaipur and when they reached 15 km. ahead of Nasirabad, to save a cyclist the car overturned due to jam of break due to which Ramesh Chandra Verma died while carrying to the hospital. 3. Thereafter, a claim petition was filed by the appellants claimants who are the legal representative of the deceased before the learned Tribunal. Notices were issued. Reply was filed on behalf of the Insurance Company. After scrutinising the evidence the award was passed. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award dated 5th March, 2000 this civil misc. appeal is preferred. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants claimants has contended that the learned Tribunal while passing the order dated 15th March, 2000 has not considered the statement of AW-2 Sita Ram @ Sanjay while deciding issue Nos. 1 to 3 who has categorically stated that the accident occurred due to jam of break of car and for which a complaint was also made with the respondent No. 1 but neither he was confronted on this aspect during his cross-examination nor he was suggested that the accident did not occur due to mechanical defect in the car. . For that purpose he has placed reliance upon the judgment of High Court of Kerala reported in 1993 AC.J. 25 : 1992 (1) T.A.C. 162 (Ker.), rendered in the case "Oriental Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. and another v. PP Mistri and others ," and a judgment of this Court reported in 1999 (2) T.A.C. 235 (Raj.) rendered in the case "Smt. Gayatri Devi and another v. Ramesh Chand and others ," 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel Mr. Buddhi Prakash Sharma appearing for the Insurance Company has contended that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the award after scrutinising the evidence. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the record available before me including the award. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel Mr. Buddhi Prakash Sharma appearing for the Insurance Company has contended that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the award after scrutinising the evidence. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the record available before me including the award. 7. In this case the claimants have got examined AD-2 Sita Ram @ Sanjay who was the driver of the car which met with the accident but at the time of accident he was not driving the vehicle but in fact deceased Ramesh Chandra Verma was driving the car. Sita Ram has deposed that due to jam of break the car overturned and met with the accident. It has come on record that Sita Ram has not proved by any documentary evidence that due to jam of break of car No. RJ 14-3C 1881 met with the accident. No mechanical report regarding jam of break of car has been produced. However, a mechanical report which has been produced which did not mention that due to jam of break the accident took place. From the record it is clear that the accident took place by a high speed of car and due to negligence of deceased Ramesh Chandra Verma. 8. I have also gone through the judgments relied upon by the claimants. The ratio decided in those judgments does not help to the claimants because vehicles involved in those cases were not in good condition and were in bad condition. But, in the instant case the car was new one and was in a good condition and the accident occurred due to fault of deceased Ramesh Chandra Verma himself and not due to mechanical fault of vehicle. 9. Accordingly, I find no ground in interfere with the award dated 15th March, 2000 and as such the appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******