JUDGMENT : LOK PAL SINGH, J. 1. This is Delay Condonation Application CLMA No.13758 of 2014 moved by the appellant for condonation of delay. There is a delay of 732 days in filing the present appeal. It is stated in the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application that the appellant received the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order dated 30.8.2012 on dated 11.09.2012, whereafter, he engaged Shri R.P. Sharma, Advocate to file the appeal against the judgment of Tribunal. After some time, the appellant came to know that Shri R.P. Sharma had expired on 18.09.2012. Thereafter, the appellant rushed to Nainital and enquired about his appeal, then he could know that no appeal has been filed by the counsel engaged by him. Then, he engaged another counsel who filed the present appeal. 2. Objections have been filed by counsel for respondent no.3 stating that neither any sufficient reason has been shown by the appellant for delay nor the facts mentioned by the appellant in the delay condonation application are supported by any evidence. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the affidavit accompanying delay condonation application, I am of the view that the delay has been sufficiently explained. In such circumstances, delay is condoned. Delay condonation application is allowed. 4. Heard on admission. 5. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 30.08.2012 passed by M.A.C.T./Addl. District Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the claim petition of the appellants-claimants has been dismissed. 6. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 05.06.2010 son of the appellants, namely, Sardar Mohammad was coming from industrial area Mahuwakheraganj to his Vilalge Daulpuri Babania by bicycle. At 04.30 pm, when he reached near Railway crossing, a Tractor bearing Reg. no.Uk-06/J-5980, was coming from behind, being driven by its driver at a high speed, rashly and negligently. In an attempt to save buffaloes, tractor overturned and fell on appellant’s son, resulting death of appellant’s son. Post-mortem of deceased was conducted by the doctor of L.D. Bhatt Government Hospital Kashipur on 06.06.2010. F.I.R. of the incident was lodged at P.S. Kashipur on 02.07.2010. On the date of accident, deceased was keeping very good health and was aged 23 years and was working in Mahuakhedaganj Factory, from where he was getting Rs.3300/- per month as salary. Post-mortem of deceased was conducted by the doctor of L.D. Bhatt Government Hospital Kashipur on 06.06.2010. F.I.R. of the incident was lodged at P.S. Kashipur on 02.07.2010. On the date of accident, deceased was keeping very good health and was aged 23 years and was working in Mahuakhedaganj Factory, from where he was getting Rs.3300/- per month as salary. With these averments, the claimants, who are parents of deceased, filed the claim petition against the opposite parties, claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000 as compensation from the opposite party along with interest @ 12 % per annum. 7. Opposite party nos.1 and 2 contested the claim petition and filed separate written statements. However, they both stated that the driver was driving the tractor, cautiously, at a moderate speed. He was having valid driving license. Further, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation, if the Tribunal arrives to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to receive compensation. 8. Opposite party no.3 - National Insurance Company Ltd. also filed its written statement and denied most of the averments made in the claim petition. In additional pleas, it has stated that the alleged accident occurred on 5.6.2010 while the F.I.R. has been shown to be lodged on 7.7.2010 at P.S. Kashipur after one month and in the F.I.R. no eyewitness has been mentioned. It is stated that the claimants in collusion with the vehicle owner has filed the false report, in order to get compensation. 9. On the basis of pleading of the parties, learned Tribunal framed following issues: (i) Whether on 05.06.2010 at about 4.30 pm at Kashipur Mahuakhedaganj Road near railway crossing, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of tractor and in a attempt to save buffaloes, hit the cycle of the deceased, due to which the tractor overturned and the deceased came under the truck, resulting his death? (ii) Whether on the date of incident, insurance policy of the offending vehicle was valid? (iii) Whether on the relevant date and time, driver was having valid and effective driving license? (iv) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive any compensation? If yes, then how much and from which party? 10. Thereafter, the parties led oral and documentary evidence. 11. (ii) Whether on the date of incident, insurance policy of the offending vehicle was valid? (iii) Whether on the relevant date and time, driver was having valid and effective driving license? (iv) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive any compensation? If yes, then how much and from which party? 10. Thereafter, the parties led oral and documentary evidence. 11. After recording the evidence of the parties and upon hearing the learned counsel, learned Tribunal arrived to the conclusion that the claimants have failed to show that the accident took place by tractor bearing Reg. no.Uk-06/J-5980 and decided issue no.1 against the claimants and consequently dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the present appeal. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and award without correctly appreciating the facts and evidence available on record, which is liable to be set aside. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.3 submitted that the claimants, in order to get compensation, had filed a collusive petition before the Tribunal, which has rightly been dismissed by the Tribunal. 14. This Court, vide order dated 21.12.2017, had called a report from S.S.P. Udham Singh Nagar about the lodging of the F.I.R. of the alleged accident. In compliance thereof, a report has been submitted by S.S.P. Udham Singh Nagar. In the report, it is stated that though complaint was made at P.S. Kashipur but nothing was mentioned in the complaint in regard to the accident; only it was written that the accident occurred by chance and that as the complainant had not prayed for any investigation, thus no investigation was carried out by the police in the matter. 15. In the light of aforesaid, this Court is also of the opinion that the claimants have not proved the factum of accident and have themselves admitted in the F.I.R. that the accident was a chance accident. In the F.I.R., complainant Noor Hasan (appellant no.1 herein) has also not made any allegation against anyone regarding involvement of accident. In such view of the matter, findings recorded by the Tribunal on all the issues are not interferable and are hereby affirmed. 16. Consequently, appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.