JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants-claimants against the common judgment dated 7.6.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur whereby the learned Tribunal rejected the claim petitions filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in entirety. The appellants/claimants have approached this Court by way of these appeals assailing the rejection of their claim applications. 3. Mr. Vishnoi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants, vehemently urged that the Tribunal rejected the claim applications filed by the appellants on a total conjectural theory and thus, the appeals deserve acceptance. He submitted that as per the facts mentioned in the claim applications, the victims were sitting on the road side on 23.1.2007. At about 1.30 P.M., a tractor trolley being driven in a rash and negligent fashion by the driver Vasu overturned crushing under it, the two deceased as well as injured persons. He urged that the F.I.R. in relation to the accident was filed promptly on 23.1.2007 at P.S. Sagwara. The specific averments in the F.I.R. were to the effect that the tractor trolley overturned on the persons sitting on the road side causing the death of two persons and injuries to numerous others. He submitted that the evidence on this specific aspect was led by the claimants in support of the claim applications. As against the evidence of the claimants, no evidence was led by the respondents to counter the case as set up in the claim applications. He thus submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the issue No. 1 that the victims were travelling in the trolley attached to the tractor at the time of the accident is totally unjustified as being purely based on conjectures and surmises. He, therefore, prayed that the appeals should be accepted and either this Court should itself assess the compensation or else the matters be remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh decision after setting aside the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 4. Per contra, Mr. Vyas, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants. He urged that the Insurance Company to: . a specific plea in the written statement filed before the Tribunal that the victims were travelling in the trolley which overturned. 4. Per contra, Mr. Vyas, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants. He urged that the Insurance Company to: . a specific plea in the written statement filed before the Tribunal that the victims were travelling in the trolley which overturned. As per him, the victims were themselves at fault for travelling in the tractor trolley which is not meant for carrying passengers. He contended that the Insurance Company was rightly exonerated by the Tribunal of the liability to make payment of compensation to the claimants because the trolley was not insured by the Insurance Company and the tractor itself was insured under the farmer's policy and no premium was charged from the owner for carrying passengers therein. Thus, he urged that the Tribunal rightly rejected the claim applications filed by the claimants. 5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the impugned judgment as well as the record. 6. The bone of contention in these appeals is the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 which is quoted herein under- " 1- vk;k foi{kh la[;k 1 oklq pkyd us fnukad 23-1-2007 dks oDr nksigj djhc 1-30 cts xkWao djkMk ls ljksnk eksM+ dh rjQ tkus okys lM+d ds fdukjs fiiksyk ?kkVh ds ikl lkoZtfud ekxZ ij okgu la[;k vkj0ts0 12 vkj0,0 247 V~sDVj e; V~ksyh dks mi;ksx esa ysrs gq, nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh] ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i izkFkhZ izrki] uklh mQZ ukFkth] Jherh larks"k mQZ garksd] dp:] Hkxoku] lq[kyky] eaxyth] nsosax o Jherh rqylh ds lk/kkj.k ,oa xaHkhj pksVsa rFkk lqJh ek;k o pUnk dh e`R;q dkfjr gqbZA -------------------- izkFkhZ " 7. A specific pleading was made in the claim applications that the victims were sitting by the road side having collected to participate in a social function. 8. The Insurance, Company in its reply did not raise a specific plea that the victims were travelling in the trolley. A-hypothetical theory was projected by the Insurance Company that in cases where the passengers are being plied in the tractor trolley, the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay compensation because the premium was not charged by the Insurance Company for covering the risk of the passengers. Another plea was taken that the trolley was not insured and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation. Another plea was taken that the trolley was not insured and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation. Thus, the pertinent and specific averment made in the claim application regarding the accident having occurred on account of the tractor trolley overturning and crushing the victims who were sitting by the road side under it, was not denied in specific terms in the written statement filed by the Insurance Company. In the reply filed by the other defendants namely, owner and driver of the tractor also, this theory was not disputed. 9. The F.I.R. of the incident was promptly filed on 23.1.2007 itself i.e. on the date of accident within a matter of 45 minutes from the accident. In the F.I.R., it has been specifically mentioned that 20-25 persons had come to participate in a social function and were sitting by the road side. At that time, the offending tractor trolley being driven in a rash and negligent fashion by its driver overturned crushing the victims under the same. The claimants examined [numerous witnesses in order to prove the manner in which the accident occurred. 10. Thus, specific evidence was led by the claimants to prove that the accident occurred because the tractor trolley overturned due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver and the victims were crushed under the same. Thereafter, the burden shifted on the Insurance Company and the other non-claimants to disprove this theory. As has been discussed above, neither the Insurance Company nor the other non-claimants even rebutted the plea taken by the claimants in the reply filed to the claim petition. No witness was examined to counter the evidence led by the claimants and thus, the pleadings and the evidence of the claimants remained unrebutted and uncontroverted. 11. In view of the abovementioned factual scenario, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the victims were travelling in the tractor trolley which overturned causing two fatalities and injuries to others is nothing but a pure figment of imagination. The finding being based on pure conjectures and premises cannot be sustained. In view of the above conclusion, the judgment passed by the Tribunal is also liable to be set aside. 12. The finding being based on pure conjectures and premises cannot be sustained. In view of the above conclusion, the judgment passed by the Tribunal is also liable to be set aside. 12. As an upshot of the above discussion, the judgment impugned whereby the claim applications filed by the claimants were dismissed holding the deceased persons and the injured themselves to be negligent and responsible for the accident and discarding the theory put up in the claim applications, cannot be sustained.Resultantly, the appeals are allowed, the impugned judgment dated 7.6.2012 is set aside and the matters are remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and decision of the claim applications after providing an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 30.7.2014. Thereafter, the Tribunal shall hear the matter afresh and decide the same in the light of the observations made herein above.No cost.Record of the learned Tribunal be sent forthwith.Let a copy of this order be placed in all the connected appeals.Appeal allowed. *******