Anil Kumar Sharma, J.— We have heard Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, counsel for the appellant, and perused the record as also papers filed along with memo of appeal. This appeal challenges the award dated 01.11.2012 passed by M.A.C.T./District Judge, Etah in M.A.C.P. No. 70 of 2011: Smt. Kiran & others Vs. Salim & others, by which the Tribunal has rejected claim petition of the appellants. Brief facts of the case are that Dhanpal Singh Shreyas-husband of appellant no. 1 died in a road accident on 28.2.2008. The claimant-appellants preferred MACP No. 70 of 2011 before the Tribunal, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.21,75,000/- from owner of offending tractor registration no. U.P. 83-H/1769. After hearing counsel for the parties, and on appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal rejected claim of claimant-appellants in to-to, holding that claimant-appellants have failed to establish that the accident had taken place with alleged tractor no. U.P. 83-H/1769 and bicycle of Dhanpal Singh Shreyas-husband of appellant no. 1, on which he was riding. The matter had been investigated by the police in which Investigating Officer has submitted a final report. The Tribunal also noted that report of said accident was lodged after more than two years against the tractor in question nominating it as offending vehicle with whom the accident had taken place. Discrepancies have also been recorded by the Tribunal in the statement of Kiran Devi-appellant no. 1. The Tribunal has also noted that post mortem report of Dhanpal Singh Shreyas (since deceased) shows that at the time of death, semi digested food was found in his stomach. Smell of al-cohal was also found which shows that the deceased was riding his bicycle under the influence of liquor when accident might has taken place by some vehicle as there is neither oral nor documentary evidence which shows that the accident had taken place from tractor no. U.P. 83-H/1769. Thus, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has given cogent reason for rejecting claim petition of claimant-appellants which was jointly not maintainable. For all the reasons stated above, we uphold the award passed by the Tribunal. The appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. _____________