JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.01.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the tribunal’ for short), by which their claim for compensation has been dismissed. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that as per the version of the claimants, on 20.06.2011 at 2.00 p.m. husband of the claimant No.1 Durgappa was waiting near bus stop of Joldal village for the bus. At that time, one Prasanna Kumar who was riding the bike came and picked up husband of claimant No.1. It was further averred that the aforesaid Prasanna Kumar drove the bike in a rash and negligent manner and dashed one Ashok who was walking on the road. On account of the aforesaid accident, the husband of claimant No.1 who was traveling as pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries. He was immediately shifted to the hospital. The police authorities registered the case against the bike rider on the complaint of claimant No.6 for the offences under Section 279, 337 read with Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. Thereafter the claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- for treatment of aforesaid Durgappa. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 though served did not file any objections. The respondent No.3 filed the statement of objection in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the insurance policy was issued in favour of Shivalingaapppa in respect of bike in question and not in favour of respondent No.2. It was also pleaded that the real owner was not impleaded and the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and there was a delay of 16 days in filing the complaint. It was also averred that the rider of the motor cycle had not sustained any injuries. In other words the factum of accident was denied by the insurance company. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the claims tribunal framed issues and recorded the evidence. The petitioner examined one witness and got exhibited 5 documents, whereas, respondent examined two witnesses and got marked 3 documents. In other words the factum of accident was denied by the insurance company. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the claims tribunal framed issues and recorded the evidence. The petitioner examined one witness and got exhibited 5 documents, whereas, respondent examined two witnesses and got marked 3 documents. The claims tribunal vide impugned judgment inter alia held that the claimants have not been able to prove that the deceased died on account of the accident which took place on 20.06.2011 on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bike. The claims tribunal placed reliance on MLC Register, Ex.R2 wherein it was mentioned that Durgappa sustained injuries by a fall from the motor bike which fell by itself. The tribunal further held that there was a delay of 16 days in lodging the First Information Report. It is also held that the complete post mortem report has not been produced by the claimants therefore, it is not proved that the deceased died on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal grossly erred in recording a finding that the claimants have not been able to prove the accident merely on the delay of lodging the First Information Report and by placing reliance on MLC Register. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company has submitted that the tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence on record and recorded its conclusion. It is further submitted that the claimants ought to have examined 2 witnesses viz., the driver of the bike as well as Ashok Kumar who was the pedestrian who was hit by the motor bike which was being driven by Prasanna Kumar. However, the aforesaid persons who were eye witnesses to the accident have not been examined. 6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the claimants have not filed the complete post mortem report. On account of non filing of the complete post mortem report, the claimants were unable to prove the fact that the deceased died on account of the alleged accident, which took place on 20.06.2011. The proceeding before the claims tribunal has to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties and on the touchstone preponderance of probabilities. The proceeding before the claims tribunal has to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties and on the touchstone preponderance of probabilities. In the instant case, admittedly, two eye witnesses to the accident viz., Prasanna Kumar and Ashok Kumar have not been examined by the claimants. Therefore, an adverse inference is required to be drawn against the claimants for non examination of the aforesaid witnesses. We agree with the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants that merely on the basis of delay in lodging the First Information Report, the petition under Section 166 Act filed by the appellants could not have been dismissed. However, the fact remains that 2 eye witnesses to the incident were not examined and the claimants were not able to prove the fact that the deceased die on account of the injuries sustained by him in the alleged accident. In view of the preceding analysis we do not find any merit in the case. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.