JUDGMENT Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J.:- This appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant against the award dated 07.08.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short ‘the Tribunal’), for the death of Bimla Devi, in a motor vehicular accident vide which the claim petition was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition of the appellant on conjectures and surmises bases. The accident took place due to the composite negligence of the three wheeler and the tractor, the factum regarding the accident was admitted by the driver-cum-owner of the three wheeler, but respondents No.3 and 4 were proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal. He further contends that the investigation report Ex.P3 prepared by the assurance company-respondent No.2 brought on record prove that the accident did take place causing the death of the victim. 3. It is further contended that respondents No.3 and 4 never appeared before the Court and failed to contest. Written statement was filed by respondent No.1 wherein, it is submitted that the deceased was travelling in the three wheeler being driven rashly and negligently as a result of which the accident had occurred. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the three wheeler. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurance company-respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed the present appeal by alleging that the offending vehicle was not insured and the husband is not the legal heir of the deceased-wife because the deceased was a deserted woman had been living with her parents after she was deserted by the claimant-appellant. It is further contended that the present appeal has been filed just to grab the compensation. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further contends that earlier claim petition was filed under Section 163-A wherein it is alleged that unknown truck had hit the three wheeler and caused the accident but the driver of three wheeler was also negligent. The claim petition was amended and converted into a petition under Section 166 of the Act, wherein the names of the driver, owner and insurance company of the tractor were added. During trial, respondent No.1 changed his version by stating that the accident occurred with the tractor in question. 5. The claim petition was amended and converted into a petition under Section 166 of the Act, wherein the names of the driver, owner and insurance company of the tractor were added. During trial, respondent No.1 changed his version by stating that the accident occurred with the tractor in question. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 contends that in the FIR it has been mentioned that the accident took place with some unknown vehicle. It is further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence. 6. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From the pleadings of the parties, it is made out that the claimant has miserably failed to prove involvement of the tractor in the accident as no eye witness has been examined. Further RW1 has changed his stand to help the claimant despite the fact that he did not know the type of vehicle, allegedly hit into the three wheeler. If he could know the identity of the offending vehicle, why this fact could not be mentioned in the FIR, but it is mentioned that the accident occurred with some unknown vehicle. Apart from the deceased, there were three other passengers in the three wheelers and the FIR was got registered by Gurmeet Singh, who was not examined in this case. It is pertinent to mention here that RW1 Harjit Singh who is an illiterate person, how he came to know that the offending vehicle was tractor, how he could be able to read the number of the offending tractor and the fact that the police told him the number of the offending tractor, in spite of that the number of the offending tractor was not mentioned in the FIR. 8. An FIR was got registered by Gurmeet Singh and he stated that the three wheeler was hit from the back side by some unknown vehicle and he has not stated anything regarding the involvement of the tractor, nor any description of offending vehicle has come on record. Thus the above circumstances casts a doubt on the truthfulness of the claim petition. 9. In view of the above, this Court finds no merits in the present appeal. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 10. Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————