JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award, dated 03.03.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Shimla, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. Petition No. 33-S/2 of 2005, titled as Sunita Sharma and others versus HRTC and another, whereby the claim petition came to be dismissed (for short "the impugned award"). 2. The appellants-claimants have invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for grant of compensation on the grounds taken in the memo of the claim petition. 3. The respondents in the claim petition resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 4. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: "1. Whether on 09.12.2004 at about 1.30 PM at Bithal, the respondent No. 2 was driving the Bus No. HP-34B-7505 rashly and negligently and as such caused the death of Sh. Sita Ram deceased? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP 3. Relief." 5. Parties have led evidence. 6. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, came to the conclusion that Malik Kumar had not driven the vehicle rashly and negligently, in fact, it was the deceased, who was himself driving the vehicle rashly and negligently at the time of the accident. 7. I have gone through the evidence. The Tribunal has rightly discussed the evidence in paras 9 to 19 of the impugned award and came to the conclusion that the vehicle was being driven by the deceased rashly and negligently at the time of the accident. 8. There is not even a single iota of evidence on the file, which can be made basis for holding that Malik Kumar was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. 9. Having said so, the impugned award is well reasoned, needs no interference. 10. Viewed thus, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 11. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.