JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – original claimant against the respondents – original opponents under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) against the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Sabarkantha at Idar in MACP No.4 of 2006 on 22.02.2017. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the claimants and the opponents as they stood in the original petition for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under: 2.1. That on 27.07.2004 at about 9.30am Sharafathusen Gulam Mohyuddin was going from Himmatnagar to Poshina in a jeep bearing registration No.GJ-2-A-6380 and at that time, the opponent No.1 came driving Tata Spacio bearing registration No.GJ-9-M-7477 in full speed and in a rash and negligent manner, on the wrong side of the road and dashed with the jeep of the applicant. That the jeep involved in the accident suffered a huge damage to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and the applicant, who was the owner of the jeep, was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and a loss of income of Rs.5,000/- per month has been caused due to damage of the jeep and hence, the applicant claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% jointly and severally from all the opponents under all available heads. 3. The opponents were duly served with the notices but the opponent Nos. 1 and 2, who are the driver and the owner of the Tata Spacio involved in the accident, did not appear before the learned Tribunal. The Opponent No.3 – Insurance Company appeared and filed the written statement at Exh.16 denying all the allegations made in the claim petition. The opponent – Insurance Company mainly contended that the accident took place on 27.07.2004 is not reported to the Insurance Company and there is no spot survey of the vehicle and involvement of the Tata Spacio in the accident is totally denied. The opponent – Insurance Company has prayed to dismiss the claim petition of the claimant. 4. The opponent – Insurance Company mainly contended that the accident took place on 27.07.2004 is not reported to the Insurance Company and there is no spot survey of the vehicle and involvement of the Tata Spacio in the accident is totally denied. The opponent – Insurance Company has prayed to dismiss the claim petition of the claimant. 4. The learned Tribunal, after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties on record, held that the claimant did not prove that the vehicle belonged to the claimant and hence, dismissed the claim petition by an order dated 22.02.2017. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the claimant filed the present appeal mainly stating that the claimant has produced the R.C.Book and the insurance policy of the jeep involved in the accident to show that the claimant was the owner of the jeep and in the R.C.Book, the claimant shows his ownership of the jeep. That on the date of the accident, the claimant was in possession of the vehicle. Since there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep involved in the accident, the accident was not reported and therefore, the insurance company and the claimant had not raised any claim against his own company. That the jeep was repaired by the claimant and the bills have been produced, which have not been considered by the learned Tribunal and hence, the claimant has prayed to allow the appeal and the amount of damage to be paid by the respondents herein. 6. Heard learned advocate Mr. R.K.Mansuri for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.Yogi Gadhia for the respondent No.3. Though served, the other respondents have not appeared. 7. Learned advocate Mr.R.K.Mansuri for the appellant has reiterated the contents of the appeal and has submitted that the appellant – original claimant has produced all the original bills on record but the same have not been considered by the learned Tribunal. That it is proved from the R.C.Book and R.T.O. certificate that the claimant was the owner of the vehicle and it is also proved that no own damage claim was preferred by the claimant with regard to the jeep involved in the accident. That the accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of driver of the Tata Spacio involved in the accident. 8. That the accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of driver of the Tata Spacio involved in the accident. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Yogi Gadhia for the respondent No.3 has submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated all the evidence and no interference is required in the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. 9. From the paper book of MACP No. 4 of 2006, the claimant has filed the examination-in-chief at Exh.19 narrating all the facts of the claim petition and during the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the insurance company, the claimant has stated that he has not produced the R.C.Book or the insurance policy of his vehicle. The claimant has also stated that he had not gone to the place of the accident after the occurrence of the accident and no notice is produced by the claimant to show that the Investigating Officer had given the claimant permission to take the vehicle from the spot of the accident. That no spot certificate report is prepared by any surveyor of the insurance company or produced and no photographs have been taken regarding the accident and there was no letter that ‘no own damage’ has been occurred by the insurance company of the jeep involved in the accident. That the vehicle has been sold to one Mohammad Shafi but immediately thereafter the witness has stated that the vehicle is sold to one Darul ulum at Dholka. 10. The claimant has also produced a letter issued by the National Insurance Company Ltd. dated 17.08.2015 at Exh. 41, which states that no own damage has been paid for vehicle for the period of 09.07.2004 to 08.07.2015. The claimant has produced the copy of the FIR at Exh.42, copy of panchnama at Exh.43, copy of charge sheet at Exh.44 and copies of bills at Exh.45. The claimant has also produced the RTO Certificate of information regarding the vehicle GJ-2A-6380 at Exh.50. 11. On perusal of the documents produced by the claimant, it appears that the accident had occurred on 27.07.2004 at 9.30 hours and the same was reported at Idar Police Station on 27.07.2004 at about 12.30 hours and the offence was registered as I-C.R.No. 59 of 2004 with Idar Police Station. 11. On perusal of the documents produced by the claimant, it appears that the accident had occurred on 27.07.2004 at 9.30 hours and the same was reported at Idar Police Station on 27.07.2004 at about 12.30 hours and the offence was registered as I-C.R.No. 59 of 2004 with Idar Police Station. That the complaint has been filed by Mohammad Zakir Mohammad Shafi, who has stated that his neighbour Jafar Mutavalli had phoned him to say that the accident had taken place and the injured were taken to hospital and hence, he went to the hospital and he was informed that they were going from Himmatnagar to Poshina in the jeep involved in the accident which belonged to Jafar Mutavalli and when they were on the Himmatnagar - Idar road, near village Dasamani, the Tata Spacio involved in the accident came on the wrong side of the road and dashed with the jeep, as a result of which, the accident occurred and seven persons, who were in the jeep, sustained serious injuries. That the front portion of the jeep was damaged and the panchnama of the place of the offence also shows the damage to the vehicles. The claimant has produced copy of charge sheet and the charge sheet has been filed against the opponent No.1 – driver of the Tata Spacio involved in the accident. 12. As far as bills produced by the claimant are concerned, the bills have been produced jointly at Exh. 45. That the claimant has produced two bills of Arzoo Motors dated 25.10.2004, two bills of Arzoo Motors dated 28.10.2004, two bills of Arzoo Motors dated 29.10.2004, one bill of Bombay Motor Garage dated 28.10.2004, one bill of Metro re-powering services dated 03.11.2004, one bill of Metro Diesel dated 03.11.2004, one bill of Nashrin Diesel Auto Garage dated 05.11.2004, one bill of Asian Auto Parts dated 23.12.2004, one bill of the Best Enterprizes dated 26.11.2004, one bill of Metro Motor Lining Works dated 27.12.2004, two bills of Metro Body Repairing Works dated 29.12.2004, one bill of Asian Auto Parts dated 30.12.2004 and one bill of Honest Motor Lining Works dated 30.12.2004 on record but no witness has been examined to prove the contents of the bills and even if the deposition of the claimant is perused, there is no whisper about all these places where the vehicle has been repaired. The claimant has produced the R.T.O. Certificte at Exh.50 and on perusal of the same, it appears that the NOC was issued to RTO Jodhpur on 27.12.2004 in favour of Gulab Kaval Kishorsinh, 206, Bahikavas, Bavari, Ta. Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. From this document, it appears that the claimant has sold the vehicle to Gulab Kaval Kishorsinh prior to 27.12.2004 and the NOC was issued on 27.12.2004. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all these facts and has rightly contended that on 27.12.2004, the owner of the jeep involved in the accident was Gulab Kaval Kishorsinh and the claimant was not the owner, moreover, the claimant has not proved the possession prior to transfer of the vehicle of the Gulab Kaval Kishorsinh and the claimant has not stated anything about the transfer of the vehicle in the claim petition or in his deposition. Moreover, the claimant has produced the bills but no witnesses, who have issued the bills, have been examined to prove the contents of the bills by the claimant. The learned Tribunal has held that the bills are suspicious and the learned Tribunal has also noted that it was the duty of the claimant to prove that he was the owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident by producing cogent and convincing evidence and the same has not been done by the claimant and has not produced any agreement or RC Book to show that he was the owner of the jeep involved in the accident on the date of accident. The learned Tribunal has also observed that no photographs or any other documentary evidence after the occurrence of the accident have been produced and therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petition by a well reasoned order. Hence, in view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed. 13. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Pending civil application, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.