JUDGMENT : AMIT RAWAL J. 1. The appellant-claimant has approached this Court against the award dated 19.05.2010 whereby the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of death of Karnail Singh, being her husband, has been dismissed. 2. Mr. Baath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that ration card and voter card list produced on record as Ex.C3 and C4 were only to form an opinion for the Tribunal regarding the relationship of appellant describing the status as of wife of deceased Karnail Singh and awarding the compensation, in essence, the appellant has been able to discharge the onus with regard to relationship being widow of deceased- Karnail Singh and the objection taken in the written statement, therefore, did not carry any weight. The Tribunal has, thus, committed illegality and perversity in arriving at a finding of dismissing the claim petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company and respondent Nos.1 and 2 namely Syndicate Bus Service Private Limited submits that the documentary evidence brought on record showed that the deceased was working in CRPF and Ex.R1, service book of the deceased proved that the deceased was unmarried. It was incumbent upon the appellant to prove the relationship of being a wife in accordance with law. In the absence of the same, rightly so, the claim petition has been dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, appraised the paper book and of the view that the facts enumerated above showed that the respondent had denied the relationship of the claimant to be wife/widow of the deceased-Karnail Singh. As per the provisions of Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under, no independent evidence has been examined to prove the relationship of the claimant as wife:- “50. As per the provisions of Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under, no independent evidence has been examined to prove the relationship of the claimant as wife:- “50. Opinion on relationship, when relevant.—When the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, or any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact: Provided that such opinion shall not be sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (4 of 1869) or in prosecutions under section 494, 495, 497 or 498 of the Indian Penal Code.” 5. The technicality of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act with regard to proving of the document should not come in the way of the claimant when the factum of the relationship is not denied. Even otherwise, the appellant-claimant was required to prove the ration card and voter identity card by examining the witnesses from the concerned department. Mere exhibition of the document cannot dispense with its proof. The aforementioned finding of mine is reiterated from the ratio decidendi culled out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sait Tarajee Khimchand And Ors. Vs. Yelamarti Satyam Alias Satteyya and others, AIR 1971 SC 1865 . 6. For the reasons aforementioned, the appellant has miserably failed to prove her relationship with the deceased-Karnail Singh as wife, therefore, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. No ground for interference is made out. The appeal stands dismissed.