Ritu Raj Awasthi,J. Heard Ms. Maria Kirwani, learned counsel holding brief of Mr.C.B.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant and perused the record. 2. The appeal has been filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 31.1.2004 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 15 of 2001 whereby a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the respondent-claimant against the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants are the owner of the bus bearing registration No. UHN 1942. The alleged accident had taken place on 15.6.2001. At the time of accident the aforesaid vehicle was off-road as it met with an accident on 15.4.2001. The bus had collided with a tree on 15.4.2001 due to break failure and was in the workshop. 4. It is further submitted that in the F.I.R. incomplete details of vehicle were mentioned and complete registration number was not given. It is also submitted that the alleged vehicle was not seized from the place of occurrence of the accident, as such the involvement of the said vehicle is highly doubtful. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was accompanied with two other children. In case any such alleged accident had taken place then all the three children should have sustained injuries. It was not practicably possible that only the deceased was hit by the alleged vehicle due to which she had sustained injuries and had died. 6. The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the aforesaid pleadings in the right perspective and has wrongly awarded the compensation against the appellants. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant, on the other hand, submitted that no such plea that the bus was off-road as it had met with an accident on 15.4.2001 was taken in the written statement filed before the Tribunal by the appellants. 8. It is also submitted that in case the vehicle was off-road, the appellants were required to surrender the registration certificate and apply for cancellation of registration as per Section 55 of Motor Vehicles Act. 9. It is also submitted that the appellants should have applied for cancellation of permit as well in view of Section 86 of Motor Vehicles Act. It is also submitted that in case the vehicle was off-road, the appellants were required to surrender the registration certificate and apply for cancellation of registration as per Section 55 of Motor Vehicles Act. 9. It is also submitted that the appellants should have applied for cancellation of permit as well in view of Section 86 of Motor Vehicles Act. Before the Tribunal no certificate of surrender of vehicle or cancellation of registration and cancellation of permit was filed, as such the learned Tribunal has rightly, on the basis of evidence produced before it, has come to conclusion that the alleged accident had taken place with the vehicle bearing registration No. UHN 1942 in which the deceased Km. Parvati aged 7 years had sustained injuries and died. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and gone through the records. 11. The learned Tribunal while deciding the claim had framed certain issues which on reproduction read as under: Þ1& D;k fnukad 15&6&2001 dks egewnkckn jkeiqj&eFkqjk jksM ij ckck dqVh ds ikl cgn Fkkuk egewnkckn tuin lhrkiqj esa le; yxHkx 3&00 cts fnu esa cl la[;k ;w0,p0,u0&1942 ds pkyd us vius okgu dks rsth o ykijokgh ls pykrs gq, lM+d ds QqVikFk ij tk jgh 7 o"khZ; dq0 ikoZrh dks VDdj ekj nh] ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i vkbZ pksVksa ds dkj.k dq0 ikoZrh dh nq?kZVuk LFky ij eqR;q gks x;h Fkh\ 2& D;k cl la[;k ;w0,p0,u0 1942 fnukad 15&6&2001 dks vfLrRo esa ugha Fkh tSlk fd fyf[kr dFku esa dgk x;k gS\ ;fn gkWa rks mldk izHkko\ 3& izfrdj dh fdl /kujkf'k dks] ;fn dksbZ gks] rks ;kph ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS ,oa fdlls\Þ 12. While deciding the said issues learned Tribunal has come to conclusion that the deceased Km. Parvati was hit by the Bus No. UHN 1942 on 15.6.2001 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. 13. The learned Tribunal has come to conclusion that PW-2 Hari Lal was an eye-witness to the said accident and his presence at the place of occurrence is not doubted. 14. The police had also filed the charge sheet wherein the involvement of the aforesaid vehicle has been mentioned. 15. It is observed by the learned Tribunal that the documents particularly the F.I.R. relating to the accident of the aforesaid vehicle on 15.4.2001 contains overwriting on the alleged date 15.4.2001. 14. The police had also filed the charge sheet wherein the involvement of the aforesaid vehicle has been mentioned. 15. It is observed by the learned Tribunal that the documents particularly the F.I.R. relating to the accident of the aforesaid vehicle on 15.4.2001 contains overwriting on the alleged date 15.4.2001. The appellants-respondents before the Tribunal had not filed any copy of the G.D. maintained at the Police Station Mahmoodabad, District Sitapur indicating the registration of the said F.I.R. on 15.4.2001. 16. There is nothing on record to believe that the said vehicle had met with an accident on 15.4.2001 and was not plied when the accident is said to have occurred. 17. The learned Tribunal on the basis of evidence has come to conclusion that the said accident had taken place with vehicle i.e. Bus No.U.H.N. 1942 in which the deceased Km. Parvati had sustained injuries and died. 18. I find force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent-claimant that in case the vehicle was off-road then the owner should have obtained the certificate of surrender of the vehicle and cancellation of registration and cancellation of permit as required under the Motor Vehicles Act. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to establish before this Court that the vehicle was not plied on the date of accident i.e. 15.6.2001. 20. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and proper. 21. The appeal preferred by the appellants having no force is dismissed. 22. The statutory amount deposited before this Court at the time of filing of the appeal shall be remitted back to the Tribunal forthwith. 23. The appellants shall pay the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal after deducting the amount already received by the respondent-claimant, expeditiously, say, within a period of six weeks from today. _____________