JUDGMENT : This Civil Misc. Appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the judgment dated 19/07/2006 passed by the Judge, MACT (ADJ No. 7), Jaipur City, Jaipur in claim petition No. 226/2004 whereby the learned Judge of the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition against the respondents. 2. Skeletal material facts necessary for disposal of the instant Civil Misc. Appeal are that claimant-appellants filed a claim petition against the opposite parties-respondents before the learned Tribunal as legal heirs of deceased Mohd. Raza and inter-alia pleaded that on 17/02/1999, the deceased Mohd. Raza and one Abdul Gafoor were going on their cycles from Eidgah Kachchi Basti to Kanota. When they reached near 'Mahila Sadan' Ghat Ki Guni at about 8:00 AM, a bus belonging to 'RSRTC' bearing its registration No. RJ-14P-3750 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver hit to Mohd. Raza from behind, resulting tyre of the bus run over him and he died on the spot. The claimant- appellants prayed to award Rs. 14,96,500/- as compensation in different heads from opposite party-respondents alongwith interest. 3. The respondent No. 1 filed reply and denied the facts mentioned in the claim petition for want of knowledge and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The respondent No. 2 also filed reply admitting the factum of accident and denied all material facts pleaded in the claim petition for want of knowledge and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. On basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge of the Tribunal framed as many as five issues. 6. The claimants got examined AW-1 Maqsood Aalam, AW-2 Kalu Ram Saini, AW-3 Gainda Lal in evidence and also got exhibited as many as 15 documents in support of their claim. Opposite party-respondents filed affidavit of NAW-1 Ram Charan in evidence and no documentary evidence was produced by opposite parties. 7. After hearing the parties, the learned Judge of the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment dated 19/07/2006, the claimant-appellants preferred this appeal before this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Judge of the Tribunal neither discussed any issue nor the evidence available on record and decided the claim petition by his own whims, surmises and conjectures. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment dated 19/07/2006, the claimant-appellants preferred this appeal before this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Judge of the Tribunal neither discussed any issue nor the evidence available on record and decided the claim petition by his own whims, surmises and conjectures. The claimants proved their claim with cogent evidence and the opposite parties did not produce any documentary evidence to rebutt the allegations of the claimants but the learned Judge of the Tribunal has not considered the evidence adduced in the matter and rejected the genuine claim of compensation of the claimants and thereby committed illegality, as such the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the entire approach of learned Judge of the Tribunal is absolutely erroneous and illegal. The impugned judgment is based on improper appreciation of facts and law thus, it is not sustainable and liable to be set aside and prayed to accept the appeal setting aside the impugned judgment and to award the compensation as claimed in the claim petition. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party-respondent has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned Judge of the Tribunal committed no error in dismissing the claim petition of the claimants and prayed to dismiss the appeal being devoid of merits. 11. The learned Judge of the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the premise that according to claim petition claimant Maqsood Aalam is aged about 18 years, even then the petition has been filed through next friend, who has not been examined. According to post mortem report, the age of the deceased was 35 years, whereas in ration card it is mentioned to be 38 years and the age of petitioner Maqsood to be 18 years, which creates doubt regarding age of petitioner Maqsood. Likewise age of other petitioners mentioned in claim petition, also appears to be fictitious. FIR was lodged by Abdul Gafoor but he has not been produced in evidence. Claimants got examined other persons and their names do not find place in the list of witnesses in criminal case. There is no evidence that claimants are the legal heirs of deceased Mohd. Raza and dismissed the claim petition of the claimant-appellants. 12. FIR was lodged by Abdul Gafoor but he has not been produced in evidence. Claimants got examined other persons and their names do not find place in the list of witnesses in criminal case. There is no evidence that claimants are the legal heirs of deceased Mohd. Raza and dismissed the claim petition of the claimant-appellants. 12. It is pertinent to note that after completion of pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed as many as 5 issues. Claimants examined 3 witnesses and got exhibited 15 documents in support of the claim petition. Opposite parties also examined one witness. Opposite party-respondent Ram Charan admitted the factum of the accident in his reply. It reveals from the impugned judgment that neither any issue was discussed nor the evidence produced by the parties and their pleadings were discussed by the Tribunal. It settled position of law that Tribunal has been created for the adjudication of the compensation claim by summary enquiry and are not expected to follow strict rules of evidence. Learned Judge of the Tribunal should bring to bear into the practical approach and should have been taken into consideration the probabilities and circumstances but instead of deciding the claim petition after considering the evidence available on record, the learned Judge has erroneously decided the claim petition on mere technicalities. The approach of the learned Judge of the Tribunal is erroneous and illegal, thus the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. 13. In view of above, the appeal preferred by claimant-appellants is partly allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal with direction to decide the claim petition afresh discussing the issues and the evidence produced by the parties, after providing them reasonable opportunity of hearing in the matter. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 21/10/2016.