JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. According to appellants, deceased Jugnu was going from Unnao to Auras and so he loaded his bicycle on bus No. UP-35A-8365. While he was loading his bicycle on the top of the bus, the bus driver, all of a sudden, started the bus. As a consequence whereof, the deceased fell on the ground due to sudden movement of the bus. He got head injuries and was brought to the hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries. According to them, as the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and, hence, it comes under the purview of Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, a claim petition was filed before the Tribunal. 2. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 20th January, 2004, rejected the claim petition as it found that the claimants have failed to establish that the accident took place by the alleged vehicle and, as such, they are not entitled for any compensation from the bus owner. Being dissatisfied by the said order, the claimants have filed the instant appeal. 3. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that an affidavit was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the driver, where it has been averred by him that the accident had taken place from the bus, which he was d riving but the said document was not dealt with by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 4. A specific query was put to the learned Counsel for the appellants that whether such ground in the memo of appeal was taken or not, to which, he has pointed out that ground Nos. 2 and 5, which have been taken in the memo of appeal pertains the aforesaid submissions. The same are reproduced as under: 2. Because the deceased was loading his bicycle on the top of the bus. The bus driver started the bus all of sudden. The deceased fell on the ground due to sudden movement of the bus from the top of the bus along with his bicycle. He got head injuries and brought to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver and hence comes under the purview of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He got head injuries and brought to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver and hence comes under the purview of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Ignoring these facts and also ignoring the ideology of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Lower Court committed grave error in rejecting the claim petition. 5. Because the FIR was lodged and the charge-sheet was filed against the owner and driver of the bus. In said criminal case No. 340 of 2004, it was prima facie proved that the bus was used unauthorizedly at the time of the accident. On the basis of the said evidence, the learned Tribunal should have awarded the compensation as claimed by the claimant/appellant. But the learned Tribunal committed grave error of law and facts both in rejecting the claim petition. On perusal of the aforesaid grounds, so relied upon by the learned Counsel for appellants, it reflects that in the memo of appeal, the appellants have not taken the ground on which he has argued. Further, there is specific finding by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that on the date of occurrence of the accident, which has been alleged, the bus in question was not plying on the route in question. The Tribunal has rightly observed that when there was no permit for plying of the vehicle on the route in question, there was no occasion for the bus to ply on the said route for carrying passengers on the date of the accident. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.