SINGH,C.J. - (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sehore, in MCC No. 17/89, dated March 5,1994.
(2.)ACCIDENT took place on 8.4.1989 when Sunderlal (50) was hit by tractor No. MKC 1753 -cum -Trolley No. MIB 7833. Allegation is that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Deceased died as a result of injuries suffered by him in this accident. Claimants, wife and children of deceased, are claiming compensation of Rs. 5,65,000/ -. Respondents 1 and 2 have disputed these allegations against them. They deny that the deceased was hit by the vehicle in question resulting in serious injuries to him. They do not admit that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver. Rather, it was being driven cautiously. Deceased was in the habit of taking liquor and on the date of accident, he had taken too much liquor, as a result of which he fell from the cycle resulting in injuries. He was taken to the hospital by the driver. He was an old man. He was not earning anything. He was dependent on his sons, therefore, there was no possibility of his living for long. Consequently, the claimants are not entitled to compensation and the claim deserves to be dismissed. Insurance company alleges that driver of tractor did not possess valid driving licence, therefore, it is not responsible and the claim be dismissed. After recording of evidence, hearing parties. Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that deceased did not die due to injuries caused by the vehicle and that it was not being driven rashly and negligently and deceased did not die due to accident, as alleged, though finding with regard to relationship of claimants with deceased is in favour of the claimants. Ultimately, claim has been rejected because the accident has not been proved.
Through the present appeal, award of Claims Tribunal has been assailed particularly finding with regard to causing of accident by the vehicle and payment of compensation to the claimants. Shri Siddharth Datt, for the claimants and Shri N.S. Ruprah took us through the case -file. Shri Datt contended that the finding of the Claims Tribunal that vehicle has not caused the accident injuries and death of the deceased is not based on correct appraisal of evidence. While Shri Ruprah contended otherwise.

(3.)THE crucial question for determination is whether there is evidence pointing out about causing of accident by this vehicle and death of deceased, as alleged. From the statement of Mohan Rathore, it is clear that the deceased died due to accident caused by tractor and trolley. Shri Ruprah contended that this witness has not given the number of tractor and trolley. We think it was not necessary nor he was asked to do so either by way of cross -examination or clarification by the Court.