JUDGMENT : (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.) 1. This appeal filed by the appellant(s) under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 07.08.2015 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, District-North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No. 18/2014 (“Smt. Satyeshwari Komre & Ors. vs. Smt. Sukali Bai”) (hereinafter referred to as “award in question”) whereby a compensation amount of Rs. 2,46,000/- has been awarded against the appellant(s) and in favour of respondents 1 to 3. 2. Brief facts of the case were that on 07.04.2013 at about 12.00 noon, deceased Mukesh Komre and his conductor were returning in vehicle commander jeep bearing registration No. CG-19-T-0468 (offending vehicle) after dropping the labourers of the forest department at village Manghaur Parali. Then near Eric Buta Road Nala, the offending vehicle lost control and overturned, due to which driver Mukesh Komre got crushed under it and died due to grievous injuries. In Pakhanjoor police station, Merg No. 23/2013 and FIR No. 41/2013 were registered. However, due to the death of the driver, no charge sheet was filed. 3. The legal heirs of deceased Mukesh Kumar, respondents No. 1 to 3, filed a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On which, the Tribunal, after a proper hearing and taking evidence from both parties, passed the award in question holding that the vehicle lost control due to the failure of the brakes of the offending vehicle and the driver Mukesh died due to being crushed under it. It was the vehicle owner's responsibility to take care of the vehicle from time to time. Due to the negligence, the accident occurred due to the failure of brakes and Mukesh died. The offending vehicle was not insured. Therefore, an award was passed in favour of the legal heirs of Mukesh and against the owner of the offending vehicle, appellant Mrs. Sukali Bai. Which has been challenged in this appeal by the legal heirs of appellant Sukali Bai as a result of her death. 4. Learned counsel for the legal heirs of the registered owner of the offending vehicle argues that the claimants had submitted the claim application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for which negligence or rashness was required to be proved. 4. Learned counsel for the legal heirs of the registered owner of the offending vehicle argues that the claimants had submitted the claim application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for which negligence or rashness was required to be proved. The vehicle owner cannot be held responsible in case of an accident caused by the negligence of the driver himself. The claimants have failed to prove that the accident occurred due to brake failure. In such a situation, the award in question passed in favour of the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is against the law and is not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the award in question is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 argue that they have proved on the basis of the merg and first information report lodged in the police station regarding the death of Mukesh and the documents like postmortem report etc. and the statement of eyewitness Naseem Khan that the vehicle went out of control and overturned due to brake failure, in which Mukesh Komre died due to being crushed under the vehicle. Naseem Khan's statement has remained unrebutted. The entire responsibility of taking care of the vehicle lies with the vehicle owner. The vehicle owner has failed to discharge this responsibility. Therefore, the award passed in favour of the claimants is appropriate. The arguments raised by the appellants in the appeal are not acceptable. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned including the record of the Tribunal. 7. In the case in hand, claimant Smt. Satyeshwari Komre and Naseem Khan from the claimants' side have been examined. They have submitted a copy of the merg report (Ex.P-1) No. 23/2013 registered in Police Station Pakhanjoor, copy of the FIR (Ex.P-2), an application and report of postmortem (Ex.P-3). In view of the same, it is clear that Mukesh died as a result of grievous injuries he sustained due to being crushed under the vehicle which went out of control and overturned. There is no mention in these documents that the vehicle went out of control due to the failure of the brakes. In view of the same, it is clear that Mukesh died as a result of grievous injuries he sustained due to being crushed under the vehicle which went out of control and overturned. There is no mention in these documents that the vehicle went out of control due to the failure of the brakes. There is no evidence in these documents regarding the presence of Naseem Khan at the spot. No mechanical examination report has been produced to show that the brake of the vehicle had failed. According to the merg report (Ex.P-1), Jagdev Ram Netam was also in the vehicle at the time of the accident and who lodged the merg report but the claimants have not got Jagdev Ram Netam examined. There was also a conductor in the vehicle at the time of the accident who had sustained injuries on the back of the head. The claimants have also not got the alleged conductor examined. 8. In the above situation, when the legal heirs of the deceased have filed the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, then it becomes necessary to see whether there was a need to prove the negligence or default of the vehicle owner or not. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal and Others, (2007) 5 SCC 428 , the provisions of section 163-A and Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act have been explained in detail, in this regard para 27 is as under:- “27. We think that the law laid down in Minu B. Mehta & Anr. Vs. We think that the law laid down in Minu B. Mehta & Anr. Vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan & Anr., (1997) 2 SCC 441 was accepted by the legislature while enacting the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by introducing Section 163A of the Act providing for payment of compensation notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or in any other law for the time being in force that the owner of a motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be, and in a claim made under sub-section (1) of Section 163A of the Act, the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned. Therefore, the victim of an accident or his dependents have an option either to proceed under Section 166 of the Act or under Section 163A of the Act. Once they approach the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act, they have necessarily to take upon themselves the burden of establishing the negligence of the driver or owner of the vehicle concerned. But if they proceed under Section 163A of the Act, the compensation will be awarded in terms of the Schedule without calling upon the victim or his dependents to establish any negligence or default on the part of the owner of the vehicle or the driver of the vehicle.” 10. In light of the above judgment, considering the case in hand, it is notable that the deceased was the driver of the offending vehicle. The claim has been filed not under section 163-A but under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In this situation, the claimant(s) needed to prove negligence. 11. In the case, according to the evidence produced by the claimants, it does not appear that Naseem Khan was a natural and reliable witness of the spot. As per the Merg intimation (Ex.P-1), the witnesses of the spot, Jagdev Ram Netam and the conductor of the offending vehicle, have not been examined in the case. 11. In the case, according to the evidence produced by the claimants, it does not appear that Naseem Khan was a natural and reliable witness of the spot. As per the Merg intimation (Ex.P-1), the witnesses of the spot, Jagdev Ram Netam and the conductor of the offending vehicle, have not been examined in the case. There is no mention in the Merg report (Ex.P-1) and the FIR (Ex.P-2) that the brakes of the offending vehicle had failed. No mechanical examination report of the offending vehicle has also been produced in this regard. This reflects that the fact of brake failure has been stated by the claimants in the claim application on its behalf, regarding which no fact has come out in the report lodged with the police and its investigation. It is also not credible that Naseem Khan saw the accident. Thus, the brake failure, which has been believed by relying on the statement of Naseem Khan, is not proved by clear and reliable evidence. The deceased himself was the driver of the vehicle and the police records only show that the jeep went out of control and overturned, in which Mukesh Komre died after being crushed under it. In this situation, it is not proved that the accident happened due to the negligence of anyone other than the driver. Therefore, the owner of the vehicle can neither be held guilty under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act nor can be held liable to pay any compensation. 12. As regards the judgment passed by the Kerala High Court in the matter of Oriental Fire And Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. And v. P.P. Misri And Ors., 1993 ACJ 307 , on which reliance has been placed by the Claims Tribunal is concerned, in that case, it was found proved that the accident was caused due to mechanical failure whereas in the present case, the fact of mechanical failure was not found proved. Therefore, it is not appropriate to give the benefit of the said judgment to the claimants. 13. In view of the above discussions, the award in question is not found sustainable, therefore, the award in question is hereby set aside. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 15. Record of the Tribunal be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any.