Judgment S.R. Waghmare,J. This is an appeal filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) against the award dated 29.10.2010 passed in Claim Case No.39/2010 by the Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manawar, Dhar by which the claim of the appellants has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Bheru (deceased) on the date of incident i.e. on 29/10/2010 was travelling with driver non­applicant No.1 Gangaram on a tractor bearing registration No.MP 11­A.B. ­3682 2 and trolley bearing registration No.MP 11­MB ­3683. The trolley was filled with mud/soil, which was to be deposited in the agricultural field. However, since they did not get any soil they were returning empty when near Manawar Banediya Road the tractor turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving of Gangaram. Bherusingh died in the incident. The offence was registered at the police station Manawar against the driver non­applicant No.1 Gangaram at crime No.89/2010 for offence under Section 304­A of the IPC. The claimants claimed that Bherusingh was 25 years of age at the time of the incident and he was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/­ as agricultural labourer and spending the sum on his family since he was only the earning member. The claimants are the parents and brother of the deceased. They claimed a total sum of Rs.31,50,000/­ as compensation. Non­applicant No.2 was the owner of the vehicle. Besides non­applicant No.2 was the Insurance Company. The claim was resisted by non­applicant No. 3 alone. Non­applicant Nos. 1 & 2 remained ex­parte. National Insurance Co./non­applicant No.3 filed written statement denying all the allegations and that the non­ applicant No.1 did not have a valid licence and the tractor was being used for other than agricultural purposes. And that the death did not occur due the said accident and there was collusion between the non­ 3 applicant No.1 and non­applicant No.2. The trial Court, on considering the evidence on record, dismissed the claim and hence, the present appeal to set aside the impugned judgment. 3. Counsel for the appellant has submitted the fact that there was ample evidence on record; despite which the claim was dismissed by the Claims Tribunal. The trial Court, on considering the evidence on record, dismissed the claim and hence, the present appeal to set aside the impugned judgment. 3. Counsel for the appellant has submitted the fact that there was ample evidence on record; despite which the claim was dismissed by the Claims Tribunal. Counsel vehemently submitted the fact that there was no doubt that Bherusingh (deceased) was travelling on the tractor­trolley on the date of the incident and that he had died due to being crushed beneath the trolley. The FIR Ex.P/2 on record, the challan papers Ex.P/1, the spot map Ex.P/3, the recovery memo Ex.P/4 and the postmortem report Ex.P/5 & P/6 have all been discarded by the Claims Tribunal. Besides the driving licence, registration and the insurance papers of the alleged vehicle were all duly filed before the tribunal and in the circumstance, the claim ought to have been allowed, but the claim has been dismissed by the Claims Tribunal; merely because the Tribunal, on the basis of surmise, has come to a conclusion that the deceased Bherusingh himself was driving the tractor and hence, dismissed the claim. However, there is no evidence on record to prove these contentions. Hence, Counsel prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside. 4. On considering the above submissions, the impugned judgment and the record, I find that there is no good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment, primarily because Fatiya @ Fatesingh, the father of the deceased, reached on the spot only after the incident took place and the police were already at the place of the incident when this witness arrived there. Moreover Bhavsingh P.W.2, who has been produced as eye­witness, has stated that he was going alone to Jotpur on his motorcycle when on the Gulati­Banediya Road he found that a tractor­trolley has been over turned then he corrected himself to say that the incident took place in front of his eyes. He has stated that the tractor was being driven rashly and negligently by Gangaram. He has also stated that the tractor over turned because it had entered into a ditch and Bherusingh, who was sitting behind in the trolley which crushed beneath it when the trolley turned turtle. He has stated that the tractor was being driven rashly and negligently by Gangaram. He has also stated that the tractor over turned because it had entered into a ditch and Bherusingh, who was sitting behind in the trolley which crushed beneath it when the trolley turned turtle. He tried to lift the trolley, but he could not do so then he proceeded to Jotpur since driver Gangaram that he told him get the trolley lifted up and that he would also inform about the incident to the parents of the deceased. However, on cross-examination he has admitted that the police had already arrived on the spot when he reached there. The FIR was also lodged 7­8 days after the incident. Moreover, the tribunal also found that the name of this witness does 5 not find place in the witness list as an eye witness and hence the testimony of this witness has not been found very reliable. Ex.P/2 the FIR indicated that the driver of the tractor was Bherusingh and the FIR has been proved by the P.W.1 Fatiya @ Fatesingh. However, the criminal proceedings recorded that the driver of the alleged vehicle was Gangaram. However, no evidence in this regard has been laid by the Claims Tribunal. Hence, the Claims Tribunal has come to the conclusion that it cannot be conclusively proved that the alleged vehicle was driven by driver Gangaram negligently and rashly and he was responsible for the death of Bherusingh. All these issues were dependent on this question alone. The Claims Tribunal therefore, rightly dismissed the claim. 5. In view of the above, I find that the learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the award against the appellants. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned award. The appeal is without merit and is, therefore, dismissed as such.