JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 23.01.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhinmal, District Jalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant. 2. The claimant filed the claim petition through his natural guardian, uncle Shri Bhava with the averments that on 24.04.2002, respondent No. 1 – Hindu Singh, while driving the L.P. Truck, bearing registration No. GRN-5674 rashly and negligently hit his mother, Smt. Gigi, which resulted in grievous injuries to her and during the treatment, she died; an FIR was registered at the Police Station Chitalvana, in which, after investigation, a challan against respondent No. 1 – Hindu Singh was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. Based on the averments, a compensation of Rs. 6,65,000/-was claimed. 3. A reply to the claim petition was filed by respondent No. 1 – Hindu Singh, denying all the averments made in the claim petition; it was stated that the fact of adoption of appellant Kasana Ram by the deceased is not proved and, as such, he is not entitled to get any compensation. 4. The Insurance Company also filed its reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition; it was specifically objected that at the time of the accident, the driver of the Truck did not have any valid driving licence and, as such, policy conditions had been violated; it was stated that the appellant is not entitled to get any compensation as no documentary proof, regarding adoption, has been produced; it was also stated that at the time of the accident the vehicle in question was insured in the name of Balvant Singh, whereas, Balwant Singh was not the registered owner of the vehicle in question and, as such, Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. The Tribunal, based on the averments of the parties, framed four issues; on behalf of the claimant, statements of four witnesses were recorded, and thirteen documents were exhibited; on behalf of respondents, no documentary, as well as oral evidence, was produced. 6. 5. The Tribunal, based on the averments of the parties, framed four issues; on behalf of the claimant, statements of four witnesses were recorded, and thirteen documents were exhibited; on behalf of respondents, no documentary, as well as oral evidence, was produced. 6. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal vide judgment impugned decided issue No.1 in favour of the claimant, but at the same time, issue No.2 was decided against the appellant and held that the claimant cannot be said to be the legally adopted son of the deceased and, as such, he is not entitled to get any compensation for the death of his mother, Smt. Gigi. Since the Insurance Company produced no oral or documentary evidence about its liability, therefore, issue No.3 was decided against it. As issue No.2 was decided against the claimant, therefore, he is not entitled to get any compensation, and his claim petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in deciding issue No. 2 against the appellant. It is submitted that from the statements of witnesses produced by the appellant, it is clear that the appellant is the adopted son of deceased Smt. Gigi. It is submitted that from the perusal of Exhibit-13, it is clear that the mutation of the land belonging to Smt. Gigi was transferred in the appellant's name, and simply because no formal adoption deed was there, it cannot be said that the appellant was not the adopted son of deceased Smt. Gigi. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant, while inviting the attention of this Court towards the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, submitted that under the said Act, what is required to be seen is the dependency, and in the present case Smt. Gigi had two daughters who were married, and her husband died earlier; she adopted the appellant, the son of her husband, and hence, the dependency on each other is proved, and the respondents have not refuted the same. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has erred in deciding issue No.2 against the appellant and dismissing the claim filed by the appellant. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has supported the impugned judgment. 10. The only point for consideration is whether the appellant has proved that deceased Smt. Gigi has adopted Kasana Ram. 11. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has erred in deciding issue No.2 against the appellant and dismissing the claim filed by the appellant. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has supported the impugned judgment. 10. The only point for consideration is whether the appellant has proved that deceased Smt. Gigi has adopted Kasana Ram. 11. While arriving at issue No.2, the Tribunal has observed that the claimant still needs to prove the factum of adoption. 12. The Tribunal has considered that in the absence of specific facts in pleadings about the date of adoption and performance of such ceremonies, the statements of witnesses are insufficient to prove the valid adoption as per Section 11 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereafter referred to as the 'Act of 1956'). 13. The Tribunal thus has concluded that the adoption of Kasana Ram by the deceased remained unproved as the conditions enshrined in Section 11 of the Act of 1956 stayed unfilled. 14. Before delineating the core issue of adoption, I deem it appropriate to narrate the fundamental requirements for proving substantial rights in any claim. 15. The factum of adoption requires a specific narration of events in the pleadings. With specific pleadings, the parties can usher the evidence to prove the case. 16. Further, Section 6 of the Act of 1956 prescribes the prerequisites for a valid adoption, which are:- "6 Requisites of a valid adoption – No adoption shall be valid unless – (i) the person adopting has the capacity, and also the right, to take in adoption, (ii) the person giving in adoption has the capacity to do so; (iii) the person adopted is capable of being taken in adoption; and (iv) the adoption is made in compliance with the other conditions mentioned in this Chapter." 17. Section 8 of the Act of 1956 provides that the female Hindu who is of sound mind and is not a minor has the capacity to take a son or a daughter in adoption. The consent of her husband has been made mandatory by the proviso to Section 8 of the Act of 1956. 18. Section 9 of the Act of 1956 deals with persons who are capable of giving a child in adoption. The other conditions for a valid adoption are stipulated in Section 11 of the Act of 1956. The consent of her husband has been made mandatory by the proviso to Section 8 of the Act of 1956. 18. Section 9 of the Act of 1956 deals with persons who are capable of giving a child in adoption. The other conditions for a valid adoption are stipulated in Section 11 of the Act of 1956. One such condition is 11(vi) of the Act of 1956, which reads as under:- "11. Other conditions for a valid adoption. (vi) the child to be adopted must be actually given and taken in adoption by the parents or guardian concerned or under their authority with intent to transfer the child from the family of his birth (or in the case of an abandoned child or child whose parentage is not known, from the place or family where it has been brought up) to the family of its adoption: Provided that the performance of data homam shall not be essential to the validity of adoption." 19. Admittedly, there is no pleading in the claim petition regarding the adoption following the provisions of the Act of 1956. 20. A plain reading of the above provisions would clarify that compliance with the conditions in Chapter I of the Act of 1956 is mandatory for a valid adoption. The two essential conditions, as mentioned in Sections 8 and 11 of the Act of 1956, are the consent of the husband before a female Hindu adopts a child and proof of the ceremony of actual giving and taking in adoption. In the pleadings, the claimant has averred nothing about the factum of the adoption of Kasana Ram by deceased Smt. Gigi. 21. In proving issue No.2, the claimant Kasana Ram through his natural guardian AW-3 Bhava was examined, and in the statement, he has admitted that he did not submit any document indicating the exact age of claimant Kasana Ram nor he mentioned in the averments about performing the ceremony of adoption. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he had not narrated the fact regarding Pancha's presence in the adoption ceremony. 22. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he had not narrated the fact regarding Pancha's presence in the adoption ceremony. 22. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of M. Vanaja v. M.Sarla Devi : Civil Appeal No. 8814/2010, decided on 06.03.2020 held that the conditions enumerated in Sections 8 and 11 of the Act of 1956 are mandatory and in the absence of proof of ceremony of giving and taking in adoption the factum of adoption remained unproved. 23. So far as the documentary evidence is concerned, the claimant has produced a Jamabandi (Exhibit-13) indicating Kasana Ram as the adopted son of deceased Smt. Gigi. More than mere entry in the mutation record is needed to prove adoption as per the conditions incorporated in Section 11 of the Act of 1956. The Tribunal has rightly observed that merely based on mutation entry and that too after the death of deceased Smt. Gigi is of no value and not sufficient to prove the fact of adoption. It is further to state that in the claim petition filed before the Tribunal, the daughters of deceased Smt. Gigi were not impleaded as parties. 24. According to Section 166(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is imperative to implead legal representatives of the deceased in the claim petition before the Tribunal. 25. AW-2 Mafi, in her statement, has stated that she is the daughter of deceased Smt. Gigi and they are four sisters. AW-3 Bhava, who is a natural guardian of claimant Kasana Ram, in his statement has stated that deceased Smt. Gigi had four daughters. Thus, from the statements of AW-2 Mafi and AW-3 Bhava, it is apparent that deceased Smt. Gigi had four daughters. It is evident from the claim petition filed before the Tribunal that the four daughters of deceased Smt. Gigi were not impleaded as parties. The above facts are enough to cast doubt about the validity of the adoption of Kasana Ram by deceased Smt. Gigi. 26. Upon perusal of the evidence and other material available on the record of the Tribunal, in my opinion, the appellant has miserably failed to prove his status as an adopted son/legal heir of the deceased. 27. In this view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal is just and proper and based on a sound appreciation of evidence, which calls for no interference in this appeal. 28. 27. In this view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal is just and proper and based on a sound appreciation of evidence, which calls for no interference in this appeal. 28. Resultantly, the appeal lacks merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed.