Rajiv Sharma & Satish Chandra, JJ. Heard Sri Shakeel Ahamd Ansari, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ved Prakash, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 27.07.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.257 of 2004. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Claimants Appellants have filed a Claim Petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow inter alia on the ground that Sri Chandrashekhar has expired on account of the accident taken place on 07/08-10-2003 by a DCM Truck bearing No.U.P. 33-Z-0796. The notices were issued and the same was contested by the opposite parties and thereafter on the basis of the pleadings exchanged between the parties, seven issues were framed, which are as under: 1. D;k fnukad 7@8-10-2003 dh jkf= esa 1 cts eky&jfgekckn jksM ls tkSfj;k lEidZ ekxZ Fkkuk&efygkckn ftyk&y[kum ds vUrxZr Mh-lh-,e- ua- ;w-ih-32 tsM&0796 ds pkyd }kjk e`rd pUnz'ks[kj dk /ku yVus dh fu;r ls mlds flj ij mijksDr Mh-lh-,e- xkMh p 2. D;k ;g nq?kZVuk Mh-lh-,e- pkyd dh rsth o ykijokgh ds dkj.k gqbZ\ 3. D;k e`rd pUnz'ks[kj dh e`R;q mlds flj ij vk;h gqbZ pksVksa rFkk vxkSaNk ls xyk nckus ls izrhr gksrh gS\ 4. D;k e`rd Mh-lh-,e- mijksDr esaxzsfl;l iSlsatj dh gSfl;r ls ;k=k dj jgk Fkk vkSj dksbZ vfrfjDr chek izhfe;e dh /kujkf'k vnk ugha dh x;h Fkh\ ;fn gkW rks izHkko \ 5. D;k Mh-lh-,e- pkyd ds ikl n`?kZVuk ds le; oS/k ijfeV] fQVusl o MªkbZfox ykblSl oxSjk ugha Fkk\ 6. D;k nq?kZVuk dh frfFk ij og okgu foi{kh la[;k&2 ;wukbVsM bafM;k b';ksjsal dEiuh fy0 ls chfer Fkk vkSj chek ikfylh dh fdlh 'krZ dk mYya?ku ugha gqvk Fkk\ 7. D;k ;kphx.k izfrdj dh /kujkf'k ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ ;fn gkW rks fdruh vkSj fdlls\ 4. The Trail Court after framing the issues and going through the pleadings, statements of the witnesses recorded before him and after considering the report of the doctors, who have conducted postmortem of the deceased Chandra Shekhar was of the opinion that the accident was disputed as the cause of death is not the outcome of the accident but it is a murder. 5. 5. From the record, it appears that the Tribunal has specifically recorded a finding that no such accident, as alleged has taken place in which Sri Chandra Shekhar has expired and, as such, the Claim Petition has been rejected. 6. Being aggrieved thereof, the instant appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned Tribunal has not recorded any finding on each of the issues framed in accordance with the provisions of Order 20 Rule 5 of CPC and Rule 220 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Act as well as the Tribunal did not appreciate the provisions of Chapter x, xi, xii and the provisions of the Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. In support of his argument, learned counsel has relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Smt. Rita Devi and Others vs. New India Assurance Co. Limited; (2000) 2 TAC 213 (SC) as well as in the case of the New India Assurance Co. Limited vs. Yadu Sambhaji More and others; 2011 (1) TAC 717 (SC). 7. On perusal of the ground so raised, it reflects that not a single ground has been taken with regard to perversity or findings recorded by the Tribunal. Further, the appellant has not requested either before the learned Tribunal or before this Court for summoning the Doctor who had conducted the autopsy of the deceased whereby reported that the cause of death is not the outcome of accident. Further, the judgment cited by the appellants counsel is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act one has to prove for claim of compensation that an accident has taken place on account of negligent driving of the offending vehicle and on account of such accident, the injury had been caused or the person succumbed to such injuries whereas in the instant case, there was a specific findings that no such accident has taken place as alleged by the claimant and further the said findings so recorded after appraisal of evidence by the court below have not been absorbed. 7. In view of above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the tribunal. The same is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. ______________