ORAL JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.923 of 1995, by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the original claimants have miserably failed to prove the involvement of Luxury Bus No.GJ-1-G-5144, which, at the relevant time of accident, was alleged to have been driven by the original opponent No.1, present appeal has been preferred by the original claimants. 2. Facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are that the deceased-Dineshbhai Jethabhai Thakkar was going from his place of residence to his factory on 27-12-1993 at about 7.45 a.m. on Kinetic Honda bearing registration No.GBW-7943. That thereafter while returning home at about 8.35 a.m. when he reached near Old Housing Board near Pushpakunj Society, he met with an accident sustaining serious injuries. According to the original claimants, opponent No.1 was driving his Luxury Bus No.GJ-1-G-5144 in full speed, rashly and negligently; he came on the wrong side and dashed with Kinetic Honda from behind. The deceased was thrown off from his Kinetic Honda and sustained serious injuries on his head, face and both the legs. That he was taken to Bhailalbhai Amin Hospital and was kept there as an indoor patient and ultimately he succumbed to the injuries on 23-6-1994. That on the date of accident itself i.e. on 27-12-1993, the father of the deceased gave police complaint with Gorva Police Station, Vadodara, being C.R.No.I-230 of 1993. However, at this stage, it is required to be noted that neither the number of the vehicle involved in the accident more particularly the number of Luxury Bus in question nor the aspect of one Prashantbhai having told him with respect to the accident was disclosed in the complaint. Therefore, the original claimants-appellants herein filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming Rs.27,20,000/-towards compensation for the death of the deceased Dineshbhai Jethabhai Thakkar. 2.1 The claim petition was opposed by the insurance company-insurer of the Luxury Bus No.GJ-1-G-5144 by filing written statement. It was specifically denied that the vehicle/Luxury Bus driven by original opponent No.1 owned by original opponent No.2 being Luxury Bus No.GJ-1-G-5144 was involved in the accident. Therefore, the Insurance Company specifically denied the involvement of Luxury Bus No.GJ-1-G-5144 in the accident. 2.2 That the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues. It was specifically denied that the vehicle/Luxury Bus driven by original opponent No.1 owned by original opponent No.2 being Luxury Bus No.GJ-1-G-5144 was involved in the accident. Therefore, the Insurance Company specifically denied the involvement of Luxury Bus No.GJ-1-G-5144 in the accident. 2.2 That the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues. 2.3 Original claimants have examined the following witnesses: 1) Wife of the deceased-Gitaben D. Thakkar at Exh.32; 2) Prashantbhai Naginbhai Patel at Exh.310; and 3) Dr.Uday Ramchandra Puramdhare at Exh.319. 2.4 Original claimants have produced and led the following documentary evidences : 1) Copy of complaint/FIR at Exh.38; 2) Copy of Panchnama of place of accident at Exh.39; 3) Copy of post mortem report at Exh.40; 4) Copy of charge sheet filed against original opponent No.1 at Exh.41; and 5) Other documentary evidences to prove the injuries sustained by the deceased, his hospitalisation, medical reports etc. from Exh.49 onwards. 2.5 On appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal has noted that the widow of the deceased, who came to be examined at Exh.32, had no personal knowledge about the accident and therefore, she had no knowledge with respect to the vehicle involved in the accident more particularly Luxury Bus No.GJ-1-G-5144. That on appreciation of evidence/deposition of Prashantbhai Naginbhai Patel, who was examined by the claimants at Exh.310, the learned Tribunal has observed and held that the evidence of said witness is not trustworthy and reliable. That in absence of any other evidence on record to prove and/or establish that Luxury Bus No.GJ.1.T.5144 was involved in the accident which, at the relevant time, was driven by original opponent No.1, by impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said claim petition. 2.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellants herein, original claimants, have preferred the present First Appeal. 3. Shri Jitendra H.Singh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants, has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in dismissing the claim petition against the respondents herein-original opponents. 3.1 It is further submitted by Shri Jitendra H.Singh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants, that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in discarding the evidence/deposition of Prashantbhai Naginbhai Patel, who was examined by the claimants at Exh.310. 3.1 It is further submitted by Shri Jitendra H.Singh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants, that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in discarding the evidence/deposition of Prashantbhai Naginbhai Patel, who was examined by the claimants at Exh.310. It is submitted that in the examination-in-chief, the said witness had specifically stated and given the number of Luxury Bus No.GJ.1.T.5144 and that he saw the accident and even Luxury Bus and therefore, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in discarding the said evidence/deposition of Prashantbhai Naginbhai Patel. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the oral as well as the documentary evidences on record more particularly the deposition of Prashantbhai Naginbhai Patel, who was examined at Exh.310. 3.2 It is further submitted by Shri Jitendra H.Singh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants, that as the original opponent No.1-driver of Luxury Bus No.GJ.1.T.5144 did not step into the witness box and/or he did not oppose the claim petition and/or contested the claim petition, the learned Tribunal ought to have drawn adverse inference and ought to have held that Luxury Bus No.GJ.1.T.5144 which was driven by original opponent No.1 at the relevant time was involved in the accident due to which the deceased initially sustained the injuries and thereafter succumbed to those injuries. 3.3 It is further submitted that even the original opponent No.1-driver of Luxury Bus No.GJ.1.T.5144 was charge sheeted by the Police Officer of the concerned Police Station before whom FIR was lodged. It is submitted that therefore the learned Tribunal has materially erred in dismissing the claim petition by holding that the claimants have failed to prove the involvement of Luxury Bus No.GJ.1.T.5144 in the accident. 3.4 It is further submitted by Shri Jitendra H.Singh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants, that the requirement of culpable rashness under the Indian Penal Code is more drastic and negligence is sufficient under the Law of Torts to create liability. It is also further submitted that while dealing with the claim petitions for the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, strict rules of evidence cannot be made applicable. It is also further submitted that while dealing with the claim petitions for the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, strict rules of evidence cannot be made applicable. It is submitted that on the basis of the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal could reasonably have arrived at the finding that Luxury Bus No.GJ-1-G-5144, which at the relevant time driven by original opponent No.1 and which was insured by the respondent Insurance Company, was involved in the accident. 3.5 Shri Jitendra H.Singh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants, has heavily relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as other High Courts in support of his prayer to allow the present appeal and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and consequently to allow the claim petition by holding that Luxury Bus No.GJ.1.T.5144 which was driven by the original opponent No.1 was involved in the accident: i. Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and others reported in 2011 ACJ page 911; ii. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Premlata Shukla and Others reported in 2007(3) TAC page 11(SC); iii. Bimla Devi and Others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others reported in 2009(2) TAC page 693 (SC); iv. Beni Bai and another Vs. Chhandilal and another reported in 2005 ACJ page 816 (M.P.); v. Mohd. Nasir vs. Angad Prasad and others reported in 2005 ACJ page 1960 (M.P.); vi. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Damor Kacharabhai Ghanabhai and others reported in 2006(3) TAC page 722 (Guj.); and vii. Dhapu Bai and others Vs. Antar Singh and Others reported in 2005(3) TAC page 351 (M.P.). 3.6 Shri Jitendra H.Singh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants, has also heavily relied on the decision in the case of N.K.V.Bros.(P) Ltd. Vs. M.Karumai Ammal and others reported in TAC (1950-95) S.C. page 287 in support of his submissions that even if the driver of the vehicle alleged to have been involved in the accident is acquitted by the Criminal Court, the same will not affect the claim for compensation. 3.7 No other submissions have been made. 3.8 Making the above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is requested to allow the present appeal. 4. The present appeal is opposed by Shri H.G.Majmudar, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Insurance Company. 3.7 No other submissions have been made. 3.8 Making the above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is requested to allow the present appeal. 4. The present appeal is opposed by Shri H.G.Majmudar, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Insurance Company. It is submitted that finding has been recorded by the learned Tribunal that the original claimants have miserably failed to establish and/or prove the involvement of Luxury Bus No.GJ.1.T.5144 which was alleged to have been driven by the original opponent No.1 in the accident and therefore, when the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said claim petition, the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court. 4.1 It is submitted that as such on appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal has rightly observed and held that evidence of Prashantbhai Naginbhai Patel, who was examined at Exh.310, to prove the involvement of Luxury Bus No.GJ.1.T.5144 in the accident, is not trustworthy and/or reliable and therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the evidence of said witness. It is submitted that thereafter there is no other evidence whatsoever led by the claimants to prove the involvement of Luxury Bus No.GJ.1.T.5144 which was alleged to have been driven by original opponent No.1 in the accident. 4.2 It is further submitted that even subsequently the original opponent No.1-driver of Luxury Bus No.GJ.1.T.5144 has been acquitted by the competent Criminal Court by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove and/or establish the involvement of the original opponent No.1 and/or even Luxury Bus No.GJ-1-G-5144. It is submitted that therefore when the findings of fact are recorded by the learned Tribunal on appreciation of entire evidence on record and consequently the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition, the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court. 4.3 It is further submitted that none of the decisions, which are relied upon by the learned advocate appearing for the original claimants, shall be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. It is submitted that in all the cases upon which reliance has been placed by the learned advocate appearing for the original claimants, the involvement of vehicle and its driver was established and proved by leading cogent evidence, either by examining the eyewitness and/or the co-passenger. It is submitted that in all the cases upon which reliance has been placed by the learned advocate appearing for the original claimants, the involvement of vehicle and its driver was established and proved by leading cogent evidence, either by examining the eyewitness and/or the co-passenger. It is further submitted that therefore none of the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate appearing for the original claimants shall be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 4.4 Making the above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present appeal. 5. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and have perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition preferred by the original claimants, by observing and holding that the original claimants have failed to establish and prove the involvement of Luxury Bus No.GJ.1.T.5144 which was alleged to have been driven by original opponent No.1. The aforesaid judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing the claim petition on the aforesaid ground has been assailed by the original claimants by way of the present appeal. 6. We have scanned and re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. It is required to be noted that to prove the involvement of Luxury Bus No.GJ.1.T.5144 in the accident, the original claimants examined original claimant No.1-widow of the deceased at Exh.32 as well as one Prashantbhai Naginbhai Patel at Exh.310. However, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that as such, the original claimant No.1 had specifically admitted that she had no personal knowledge about the incident/accident. She was not present at the time of incident/accident and when she went to the scene of offence, as the deceased was already taken to Bhailalbhai Amin Hospital, straightaway she went to the hospital. Therefore, when she had no personal knowledge about the incident/accident in question, the deposition of original claimant No.1-widow of the deceased would hardly be of any help to the claimants to establish and prove the involvement of Luxury Bus No.GJ.1.T.5144 in the accident. Therefore, when she had no personal knowledge about the incident/accident in question, the deposition of original claimant No.1-widow of the deceased would hardly be of any help to the claimants to establish and prove the involvement of Luxury Bus No.GJ.1.T.5144 in the accident. 6.1 Now so far as reliance placed upon the deposition of witness Prashantbhai Naginbhai Patel, who was examined at Exh.310 and who was alleged to be the eye witness is concerned, in the cross-examination, he has specifically admitted that before he reached the place of incident, the driver of Luxury Bus fled away with his Luxury bus. By giving cogent reasons in paragraphs 14 and 15, the learned Tribunal has discarded his evidence by observing that evidence of the aforesaid eye witness is not reliable. In paragraphs 14 and 15, the learned Tribunal has observed as under: “14. Evidence of the witness Prashant Patel Ex.310 shows that he had seen the accident personally. Bus dashed with the deceased. So, deceased fell down on the ground. Number of the Bus was AGJ-1/T-5144. He took the deceased at Bhailalbhai Amin Hospital in Rickshaw where the deceased was admitted. Deceased was injured on nose and ear. Accident took place on 26/12/1993. While in the present case accident took place on 27/12/1993. Witness further states in her evidence that he does not remember date of incident. Accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the bus. 15. Witness admits in his cross examination that it is true that before he reached, driver of the bus fled away with his Luxury Bus. This cross examination shows that witness has not seen the incident nor he has seen the number of the bus. Chief examination and cross examination shows that witness has given false evidence on oath. So, evidence of the witness is not reliable.” 6.2 Considering the deposition of the witness Prashantbhai Naginbhai Patel, who was examined at Exh.310 and more particularly his cross-examination, we are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in discarding his evidence by observing that the deposition of the said witness is not reliable. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the cross-examination, the aforesaid witness has specifically admitted that by the time he reached the place of incident/accident, the driver had run away/fled away with the Luxury bus. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the cross-examination, the aforesaid witness has specifically admitted that by the time he reached the place of incident/accident, the driver had run away/fled away with the Luxury bus. It is not appreciable as to how in that view of the matter he could have seen the involvement of Luxury bus and even could have noted the number of the Luxury Bus. Under the circumstances, the learned Tribunal has rightly discarded his evidence. 6.3 Now so far as the contention on behalf of the original claimants before the learned Tribunal that the police filed the charge sheet against original opponent No.1-driver of Luxury bus and therefore, involvement of Luxury bus is established and proved is concerned, the aforesaid plea is not available as, subsequently, the original opponent No.1-driver of Luxury Bus No.GJ.1.T.5144 has been acquitted. 6.4 Now so far as the reliance placed on the decisions of Delhi Court, M.P.High Court and this Court by the learned advocate appearing for the original claimants referred to in paragraph 3.5 hereinabove, we are of the opinion that none of those decisions would be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and would be of any assistance to the original claimants. 6.5 In the case of Ravi(supra), as such, the accident was witnessed by father of the injured and another person and they took him to the hospital. In the said case, even the owner of the truck admitted the accident and on appreciation of evidence, it was found that the occurrence of the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of truck by its driver thus established. Despite the above, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that FIR was lodged belatedly which came to be set aside by the High Court by observing that mere delay in lodging the FIR is no ground to dismiss the claim petition when the occurrence of the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver has been established. 6.6 In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Premlata Shukla & Ors. (supra), the issue involved was that once a part of the contents of document was admitted in evidence, party cannot be permitted to turn around and contend that other part of the contents had not been proved. 6.6 In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Premlata Shukla & Ors. (supra), the issue involved was that once a part of the contents of document was admitted in evidence, party cannot be permitted to turn around and contend that other part of the contents had not been proved. It is not appreciable as to how the aforesaid decision would be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 6.7 In the case of Bimla Devi and Others (supra) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned Tribunal found the accident proved by eye witness and even the driver and conductor admitted their presence at the scene of occurrence. The High Court dismissed the claim petition by quashing and setting aside the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal which came to be set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by observing that the judgment of the High Court to a great extent is based on conjectures and surmises. 6.8 In the case of Beni Bai and another (supra) before the M.P. High Court, the eye witness deposed that the accident was caused by the jeep which was being driven rashly and negligently. The Tribunal did not rely upon the deposition of the eye witness solely on the ground that his name was not mentioned in the FIR and rejected the claim on the ground that involvement of the jeep is not established. Reversing the judgment and award of the Tribunal, the M.P. High Court allowed the claim petition relying upon the deposition of the eye witness by observing that the deposition of eye witness cannot be discarded solely on the ground that his name was not mentioned in the FIR. 6.9 In the case of Mohd. Nasir (supra) before the M.P. High Court, the deposition of a co-passenger of the injured, who was sitting by the side of driver, came to be considered by the High Court. 6.10 Now so far as the reliance placed on the decision of this Court in Damor Kacharabhai Ghanabhai and others (supra) by the learned advocate appearing for the claimants in support of his submissions that as observed by the Division Bench in the said decision, strict rules of evidence cannot be made applicable to the claims under the Motor Vehicles Act is concerned, there is no dispute about the proposition of the law laid down in the said decision. However, it has to be noted that there must be some evidence to prove the involvement of Luxury Bus No.GJ.1.T.5144 in the accident, which is lacking in the present case. 6.11 Now so far as the reliance placed on the decisioin of the M.P. High Court in Dhapu Bai and others (supra) is concerned, the eye witness in clear terms deposed that he saw the accident which involved offending vehicle and also deposed its number and in cross-examination, he maintained the said version. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the alleged eye witness Prashantbhai Naginbhai Patel at Exh.310 has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that when he reached the place of incident/accident, the driver of Luxury Bus No.GJ-1-G-5144 had already run away/fled away with the Luxury Bus. 6.12 In so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.K.V.Bros.(P.) Ltd. (supra) by the learned advocate appearing for the claimants in support of his submissions that even if the driver of the vehicle alleged to have been involved in the accident is acquitted by the Criminal Court, the same will not affect the claim for compensation is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such, from entire evidence, involvement of the Luxury Bus in the incident/accident and its driver is still required to be established to some extent, though strict proof of evidence may not be necessary and the same may not be applicable to the claims under the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, when the original claimants have miserably failed to establish and prove involvement of Luxury Bus No.GJ-1-G-5144 in the accident, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in dismissing the claim petition. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are on appreciation of evidence and on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, we confirm the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal and accordingly confirm the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing the claim petition. 8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and accordingly is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. 9. Registry is directed to send back the records and proceedings to the learned Tribunal forthwith.