JUDGMENT : R.M. CHHAYA, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award 18.5.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1247 of 2001 the present appeal is preferred by the original claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal after considering the panchnama at Ex.54 was pleased to dismiss the petition and therefore, this appeal is filed by the original claimants. 2. The record indicates that the accident took place on 8.8.2001 at 8:00 p.m. on Idar Himmatnagar road, near Sapawada village. As per the record, deceased Abdulgafarbhai and deceased Rafikmiya were going from Netramali to Idar on Scooter bearing No. GJ-9J-9842 and deceased Abdulgafarbhai was driving the scooter and deceased Rafikmiya was sitting as a pillion rider. It is the say of the claimants that when they reached Village Sapawada the Tanker with Trailer came from behind being driven in rash and negligent manner and tried to overtake from wrong side as a result the front portion of the scooter dashed with the Tanker. That both, the driver as well as the pillion rider fell down on road and sustained serious injuries and succumbed to it. An FIR was lodged with Idar Police Station. A panchnama of place of the accident was conducted by the Investigating Officer. The same is on record at Ex.54. The claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 27 lacs which came to be dismissed on the ground of 100% negligence of the driver of the scooter deceased Abdulgafarbhai and being aggrieved by the same the present appeal is filed. The said claim petition was considered to be the main claim petition and was disposed of by common judgment and award dated 18.5.2009 alongwith Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1248 2009 and present appeal relates to Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1247 of 2009 as mentioned hereinabove. 3. Heard Rajesh Shah, learned advocate for the appellants-claimants, Mr. Ketan Shah, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent No. 3. Though served no one appears for respondent No. 1 and have also perused the original record and proceedings. 4. Mr. 3. Heard Rajesh Shah, learned advocate for the appellants-claimants, Mr. Ketan Shah, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent No. 3. Though served no one appears for respondent No. 1 and have also perused the original record and proceedings. 4. Mr. Rajesh Shah, learned advocate appearing for the appellants has contended that the learned Tribunal has misread the panchnama at Ex.54 and without examining the manner in which the accident has taken place on wrong premises dismissed the claim petition. Mr. Shah further contended that the panchnama clearly shows the manner in which the accident has taken place and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal that the driver of the scooter was 100% negligent is incorrect and contrary to the panchnama at Ex.54. Mr. Shah on the aforesaid grounds contended that the appeal be allowed and the proceedings of Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1247 of 2009 deserves to be remanded back for its hearing on merits, on all points. 5. Per contra, Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent No. 3 has opposed the appeal. Mr. Mehta contended that the bare reading of panchnama at Ex.54 clearly shows that the front portion of the scooter involved in the accident was damaged whereas the rear right side of the Tanker Trailer was damaged. According to Mr. Mehta, the learned Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence in form of panchnama at Ex.54 and has rightly rejected the claim petition. Mr. Mehta contended that the appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed. 6. Mr. Ketan Shah, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 also submitted that the appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed. 7. No other or further submissions, contentions and/or grounds are raised by the learned advocates appearing for the parties. 8. It is the matter of record that the claim petition filed by the appellants came to be rejected only on the sole ground of negligence by appreciating the panchnama at Ex.54 and, therefore, the other contentions raised by the appellants in the original claim petition is not necessary to be gone into by this court in this appeal. 9. Upon re-appreciating the evidence and more particularly the panchnama at Ex.54 the following glaring facts emerge: (i) That the accident took place at 8:00 p.m. i.e. in darkness that too on a highway. 9. Upon re-appreciating the evidence and more particularly the panchnama at Ex.54 the following glaring facts emerge: (i) That the accident took place at 8:00 p.m. i.e. in darkness that too on a highway. (ii) Considering the time of accident and the place of accident it was darkness. (iii) The accident has taken place between Tanker containing milk joined with a trailer and other impending vehicle is a smaller vehicle being a Bajaj made scooter driven by the deceased. (iv) The learned Tribunal has noted brake marks of scooter till five feet and has come to the conclusion as regards the speed of the scooter. However, the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the capacity of a Bajaj Super Scooter as far as the speed is concerned. (v) The panchnama clearly shows that there were no backlights in the trailer or any night indicator. (vi) It is also the case of the appellants that the front portion of the scooter dashed with the rear part of the Tanker. 10. Upon re-appreciating the panchnama at Ex.54 it clearly appears that the accident took place at night hours at about 8:00 p.m. and Tanker had no night indicators and such fact clearly emerges from the panchnama which with respect has not been considered by the Tribunal. There is also a specific mentioned that the right side of the rear light of the Tanker was not in a working condition. The Tribunal has also not examined the manner in which such a huge and long vehicle has tried to overtake. This Court therefore is of the opinion that dismissal of the claim petition solely based upon wrong appreciation of the manner in which the accident has taken place, the condition of the vehicle i.e. the Tanker Trailer and the fact that the accident has taken in darkness at 8:00 p.m. is totally overlooked by the Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition. 11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances arising in this case the impugned order of dismissal therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside and the proceedings of claim petition being Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1247 of 2009 deserves to be remanded back to the Tribunal for its rehearing from the stage of arguments and the same is restored back to the file of Motor Accident Claim Petition (Main), Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar. As the original petition is 2001, the Tribunal is hereby directed to give priority to the same and endeavour to dispose of the claim petition after giving an opportunity of being heard to all parties. It would be open for the parties to take all available contentions. The Tribunal shall decide the claim petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. The appeal is allowed accordingly. 12. R&P be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. However, there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.