In order to prove Issue No.1 claimants had failed to examine any eye-witness. Claimants had examined two witnesses in support of their case. AW-1 Girdhari Lal and AW-2 Raghuveer had stated in their cross-examination that they had not witnessed the accident. In-fact, AW-1 is the father of the deceased, whereas, AW-2 was examined to establish the income of the deceased. It was necessary for the claimants to have proved that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.5 while driving the offending vehicle. Merely because challan had been presented in the criminal case, was not sufficient to decide Issue No.1 in favour of the claimants. The driver of the offending vehicle could be acquitted in the criminal case. So far as the claim petition was concerned, the claimants were required to examine the eye-witnesses to establish the manner of accident. Opposite party would have got an opportunity to cross-examine the eye-witness to test his testimony with regard to the manner of accident. In the absence of examination of the eye-witness before the Tribunal, the opposite party has been denied its valuable right to crossexamine the said witness and establish their own plea. In case it is to be held that there was no need to examine an eyewitness and the claim petition could be allowed merely on the basis of the documents attached with the challan in the criminal case, then there is no need even to issue notice to the opposite party and the compensation could be granted merely on the filing of the claim petition alongwith challan papers. However, it cannot be done so. Before a claim petition could be
