JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 30.9.2009 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Mehsana below Exh. 40 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1228 of 1999 whereby learned Tribunal rejected the claim petition. 2. The short facts of the case are that on the day of incident i.e. 17.7.1999 the deceased had gone to brick depot for loading bricks in tractor situated in between villages Savala and Saduthala. At that time, tyre of the trolley got punctured and therefore, deceased Kalaji Vashramji Thakor along with other person were going on a tractor for puncturing the tyre. On the way, some cattles came and, therefore, the tractor was passed from side of the road and as a result, the vehicle got turtled and husband of appellant No. 3 died. Therefore, the original claimants preferred the claim petition and ultimately, learned Tribunal rejected the same. 3. The appellants - original claimants have preferred the present appeal, inter-alia, contending that the judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal is not in consonance with the evidence on record. It is contended that learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the finding that the vehicle in question has been wrongly planted and no uniformity is forthcoming as regards to vehicle in question involved in the accident. 4. This Court has heard Mr. Yogendra Thakore, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. Mazmudar, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 - insurance company. Though served, none appears for respondent No. 1. 5. It is the contention of Mr. Thakore, learned advocate for the appellants that victims are belonging to lower strata of the society and the deceased was serving as driver upon the tractor for which the present claimants have no knowledge and whatever statement given by the owner of the tractor as well as other persons, the present appellants had no knowledge. In his submission, even if there may be some discrepancy, the claimants may not be deprived of getting the just compensation. 6. On the other-hand, Mr. Mazmudar, learned advocate for respondent No. 2 - insurance company has argued that even if this Court may accept the argument of Mr. In his submission, even if there may be some discrepancy, the claimants may not be deprived of getting the just compensation. 6. On the other-hand, Mr. Mazmudar, learned advocate for respondent No. 2 - insurance company has argued that even if this Court may accept the argument of Mr. Thakore, then also, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation as the deceased himself was driver of either of the vehicles i.e. Tractor No. GBZ 8815 or Tractor No. GJ-2B 3545 as pleaded by the claimants and therefore the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased cannot maintain the claim under Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 as third party. 7. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by learned advocates for both the sides, this Court has gone through the impugned judgment and award. 8. On going through the Record and Proceedings as well as impugned judgment and award, indisputably there was contention as regards to involvement of Tractor No. GBZ 8815 or Tractor No. GJ-2B 3545 at the time of accident. However, it appears that learned Tribunal has lost the sight of the fact that deceased Thakor Kalaji Vashramji himself was driver of the tractor involved in the accident and, therefore, heirs and legal representatives of the deceased cannot maintain claim petition under section166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 as such. 9. In the result, the appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. It is clarified that this Court has dwell on the issue as regards to maintainability of the claim petition keeping in mind Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and has not entered into the merits of the appeal as the claim itself was not maintainable. Indisputably, the deceased was working as labourer upon the tractor. Therefore, the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased shall be at liberty to move before the appropriate forum if so advised, under the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act against the concerned employer. No order as to costs.