Gokal Chand Mital, J.
1. On 6th August, 1972, an accident took place on a crossing in Sector 19 near Gurdwara, in which a scooter, Motor Cycle and Car were involved. Kapil Dev Kaushal who was on the scooter (whether he was driving the scooter or was on the pillion is a point to be decided in this appeal), fell down and became unconscious. When he was being removed to P.G.I., he died on the way. His parents filed an application for grant of compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The owners, drivers and Insurance Company of the three vehicles were impleaded besides impleading Chander Mohan, who was also on the scooter. The Tribunal found that the scooter was being driven by Kapil Dev Kaushal and the accident took place due to his negligence. During the trial, the claimants exonerated the drivers of the Car and Motor Cycle and led evidence to show that Chander Mohan was driving the scooter and due to his negligence Kapil Dev Kaushal sustained injuries and on this basis claimed damages from the owner of the scooter, namely, Shri Amar Inder Jit Singh. Since it was found that Kapil Dev Kaushal who did not have the licence and was below 18 years was negligent the claim petition was dismissed. This is appeal by the claimants.
2. If the claim had been made against the owner, driver and the Insurance Company of the Car or Motor Cycle, the matter could have been gone into. Since even before me no argument was raised, rather it was candidly stated by Shri Vijay Tiwari Advocate that no argument is being raised against the owner drivers and the Insurance Company of the Car and Motor Cycle therefore, the matter about their being negligent and liable to pay compensation, does not arise for consideration. Accordingly, the matter stands confined to one simple fact as to whether the scooter was being driven by Kapil Dev Kaushal or by Chander Mohan and whether for their negligence the owner of the scooter could be held liable for payment of compensation.
3. The scooter was owned by Amar Inder Jit Singh and Chander Mohan is his sister's son. Kapil Dev Kaushal is first cousin of Chander Mohan. Chander Mohan appeared as RW 6 and stated that Kapil Dev Kaushal was driving the scooter. No reliable evidence has been brought from which it can be concluded that it was Chander Mohan, who was driving the scooter.
4. It was argued before me that the Tribunal was in error in concluding from the following that Kapil Dev Kaushal was driving the scooter:
(1) That Kapil Dev Kaushal was few months less than 18 years whereas Chander Mohan was 14/15 years old and, therefore, the elder must be driving the scooter;
(2) that it was proved from the evidence on record that Kapil Dev Kaushal fell in front of the scooter and, therefore, he must be driving.
I do not find any infirmity in the inference drawn by the Tribunal from the aforesaid circumstances. Even if from the aforesaid evidence no such inference is drawn, yet there is no reasonable evidence available on the record to conclude that it was Chander Mohan who was driving the scooter. Nothing has been pointed out why the statement of Chander Mohan, who is first cousin of Kapil Dev Kaushal, should not be believed that it was Kapil Dev Kaushal, who was driving the scooter.
5. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.