JUDGMENT Mr. Jaswant Singh, J.: - Instant application under Order 41 Rule 19 read with Section 151 CPC has been filed for restoration of the FAO No.4811/2011 which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 9.1.2012. The application is supported by an affidavit of counsel for the appellant. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, the order dated 9.1.2012 is recalled and FAO No.4811/2011 is restored to its orignal number. At the request made by the learned counsel for the appellant the appeal itself is taken up for hearing. FAO No.4811/2011. 2. This order shall dispose of FAO No.4811 and 4812 of 2011 as both these appeals arise out of one and the same motor vehicular accident, involving identical facts, which are briefly noticed as under. As per case of the claimant/appellant on 17.3.2002, claimant alongwith her husband (Amar Chand) were going from Ambala City to Ambala Cantt to see one Krishan Kumar who was admitted in a hospital at Ambala Cantt. They were travelling on a rickshaw which was allegedly being pulled by suresh Kumar on left side of the road. At about 11.15 pm, when the rickshaw covered distance of about 100 meters at Jandli railway over bridge in the area of Ambala City, the rickshaw was hit by one one Gypsy bearing registration no.DAV 3967 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) driven by one Ram Singh (respondent no.3 herein). As a result of the said collision, both claimant Smt.Bimla and her husband Amar Chand fell from rickshaw and received multiple simple and grievious injuries. They were taken to Civil Hospital, Ambala, where Amar Chand died of injuries suffered by him. Claimant/appellant Smt.Bimla and her children filed two separate claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, one for the death of Amar Chand and the other for the injuries suffered by Smt.Bimla. 3. Upon notice of the claim petitions, owner, driver and insurer of offending vehicle contested the claim petitions by filing written statements. 4. In their joint written statement, driver and owner of the offending vehicle denied involvement of the offending vehicle in the alleged accident and dubbed the case of the claimant as concocted story. 5. 3. Upon notice of the claim petitions, owner, driver and insurer of offending vehicle contested the claim petitions by filing written statements. 4. In their joint written statement, driver and owner of the offending vehicle denied involvement of the offending vehicle in the alleged accident and dubbed the case of the claimant as concocted story. 5. Insurer of the offending vehicle in its written statement claimed that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and even the offending vehicle was not having a valid registration and fitness certificate. It was further alleged that claim petitions have been filed in connivance with owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. Both sides led evidence in support of their respective pleas. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (for short the Tribunal) after hearing both sides and perusing the oral/documentary evidence led by the parties dismissed both the claim petitions. Hence these two appeals. 7. At the time of arguments, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the claimants/appellants that the impugned award is based on misreading of evidence available on record and hence liable to be set aside. Further prayer has been made for grant of compensation as claimed in the claim petitions. 8. After hearing the learned counsel, I find no merit in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants. 9. The learned Tribunal while rejecting the claim petitions has found that FIR Ex.P2 was registered on the statement of Smt.Bimla Devi injured eye witness-cum-claimant. In the said FIR neither the particulars of the offending vehicle viz., kind, make, registration number etc. were given nor the name of the driver of the said vehicle was mentioned. The said FIR was registered one day after the accident i.e. on 18.3.2002 against unnumbered vehicle and unknown driver. It was further noticed by the Tribunal that during her cross examination the injured-claimant/Smt.Bimla (PW2) admitted that she did not mention the number of offending vehicle nor she knew the same. In these circumstances, it was concluded by the Tribunal that how the offending vehicle and its owner/driver were introduced by the prosecution, remains a mystery. 10. Besides PW2, the claimants also examined Naresh Kumar PW1 as alleged eye witness of the accident. In these circumstances, it was concluded by the Tribunal that how the offending vehicle and its owner/driver were introduced by the prosecution, remains a mystery. 10. Besides PW2, the claimants also examined Naresh Kumar PW1 as alleged eye witness of the accident. However, during his cross examination, he stated that he did not know the name of the passengers who were sitting in the rickshaw at the time of accident. However, it was stated by PW1 Naresh Kumar that his statement was recorded by the police, but no such statement was placed on record. It has further been noticed by the Tribunal that in the criminal case, one Pushpinder Aggarwal has been cited as eye witness of the accident but he did not support the prosecution case. After perusing the statements of said Pushpinder Aggarwal and claimant Smt.Bimla, the Tribunal had noticed that both these witnesses did not know the the number of the offending vehicle or the make thereof or the name of the driver/owner or of the insurer. 11. From the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, I find no illegality or irregularity in the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence both these appeals are liable to be dismissed. 12. Ordered accordingly. ---------0.B.S.0------------