Jitendra Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants against the impugned award dated 14.11.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal'). The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Tribunal had erred in holding that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. She refers to the statements of PW -1 Bindwati and PW -2 Vikas Kumar contend that the deceased was a permanent driver on the offending vehicle i.e. Mahindra Jeep No. CH -03 -S -2950. It is further contended that the DDRs Ex. P -2 and Ex. P -3 are sufficient to prove that the death of deceased occurred while driving the offending vehicle.
(2.) THE Learned counsel further contends that the learned Tribunal has wrongly held that the appellants were not entitled to the compensation being married daughters of the deceased. The claim petition was initially preferred by the mother of the deceased who died during the pendency thereof, and the appellants being daughters of the deceased brought themselves on record as legal representatives of the deceased -claimant. Heard.
(3.) FROM the perusal of the impugned award, it is made out that the post mortem report of the deceased Ex. RW -3/A did not mention the cause of death. The claimants also could not produce any eye witness of the accident. In the statement of PW -2 Vikas Kumar, it has been stated that the deceased was found dead at about 8.00 a.m. while on the steering of the offending jeep. However, this statement is not sufficient to prove that the death in question occurred due to any accident. This is also not a eye witness.;