JUDGMENT 1. This is an Appeal arising out of the Award as regards no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 passed by the Member, Court no.2, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai. According to the claimant the accident had occurred on account of BEST bus no.MH-01-LA-6788. 2. According to the Appellant the said bus was an air-conditioned bus and was designated to travel on a route between the Backbay Reclamation to Oshiwara, and was actually standing in the Oshiwara Bus Depot at relevant time. Said bus was not and could not have been on the route or at the place of the accident. 3. The case proceeds in the background that though the BEST had filed a written statement and even it had filed various documents in support of the written statement, an affidavit to support the plea contained in the written statement was not filed. 4. The document relevant to the route and status of the bus, though purportedly maintained in due course of routine business, these documents do not possess the status and worth or value of a ‘public document’, nor those documents can be read in evidence in absence of proof thereof in accordance with law. 5. In these circumstances, due to failure to disprove the jurisdictional fact, impugned award cannot be denoted as erroneous. Even it cannot be criticized to be erroneous on account of any alleged error in appreciation of evidence. 6. It was open for the Corporation to have brought the affidavit of the Driver and other staff on record to support its plea. Rebuttal based on evidence which BEST possessed, which could have been conveniently done by filing an affidavit, has not been done by the appellant. 7. Though the Tribunal was hearing the case and had to adopt the summary procedure, the said procedure did not precluded the respondent from substantiating its plea raised in the written statement by filing an affidavit, particularly when the plea was about denial of very existence of the fact of accident. Involvement of any particular vehicle is one rather the inevitable ingredient of the no fault liability. Summary procedure would not imply “No enquiry”. However, enquiry would always presuppose proper pleadings and efforts on the part of the parties a proper rebuttal. Bare reliance on pleadings does constitute “traverse” but not rebuttal. 8. Involvement of any particular vehicle is one rather the inevitable ingredient of the no fault liability. Summary procedure would not imply “No enquiry”. However, enquiry would always presuppose proper pleadings and efforts on the part of the parties a proper rebuttal. Bare reliance on pleadings does constitute “traverse” but not rebuttal. 8. The challenge to the Award subject matter being in the appeal under civil law, in an award cannot be assailed, unless the same is shown to be contrary to law. 9. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. 10. Civil Application no.192 of 2013 is accordingly dismissed as it does not survive. 11. Amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited in this Court be transferred to the Tribunal.