The evidence of eyewitnesses, even if they are not named in the First Information Report or are not residents of the place where the accident occurred, can be relied upon to prove the cause of an accident.

Sarojnei Saksena, J.

1. Appellant has preferred this appeal against the award passed by Shri R.P. Bashin, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala on 23rd May, 1985 wherein he has awarded Rs. 76800/- to the claimants and respondents 1 and 2 are made liable to pay this amount jointly and severally to the claimant with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application.

2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case were that Rajian and Jodha Ram are the parents of the deceased Randhir Singh whereas Dilbagh and Om Parkash are minor brothers of the deceased. At the time of accident the age of Randhir Singh was about 20 years. He was serving as compounder in Veterinary Hospital, Naraingarh and was drawing Rs. 850/- per month. On 15.11.1983, at 8.15 A.M. Joginder Singh respondent No. 1 was driving truck No. HRA 6584 so rashly and negligently that he struck against the deceased, who was going on a cycle. Randhir Singh sustained grevious injuries. He was immediately taken to Civil Hospital, Naraingarh by respondent No. 1. The deceased was referred to PGI, Chandigarh where he was declared dead. Respondent No. 2 (appellant) is the owner of the truck. Truck was not insured but was hypothecated with the State Bank of India, Naraingarh Branch. The Claimants submitted the claim petition as dependents and legal heirs of the deceased and claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation.

3. Respondent 1 and 2 filed separate written statement. According to respondent No. 1, no such accident took place on 15.11.1983 with his truck. He was not driving this truck on 15.11.1983. This fact was admitted that respondent No. 2 is the owner of the truck. All other facts were denied. Respondent No; 2 also in his written statement admitted that he is owner of the truck. He too denied all other allegations made in the claim petition. Respondent No. 3 pleaded that this truck was hypothecated with the Bank but he is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.

4. Parties adduced evidence. The trial Court believing the claimants evidence held that at the time of accident, the said truck was being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently whereby he dashed it against the deceased who was coming on a cycle. Deceased sustained injuries. Respondent No. 1 himself took him to the Civil Hospital, Naraingarh from where deceased was referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh, where he was declared dead. On these findings, respondents 1 and 2 being the driver and owner of the truck were held liable to pay compensation for vehicular accidental death of Randhir Singh. Hence, the said award was passed against these two respondents and respondent No. 3 was held not liable to pay anything to the claimants. Their petition was dismissed against respondent No. 3.

5. Appellants main contention is that the trial Court while assessing the evidence of Raj Kumar AW2 and Ram Pal PW3 fell into an error in believing that they are eye witnesses of this accident. They are neither named :n the First Information Report which is duly proved by AW-6 MHC Palal Ram. Admittedly, a criminal case was registered against respondent No. 1 under Section 304-A I.P.C. about this accident. But in that criminal case these two witnesses, were not cited as eye witnesses. These witnesses never went to the Police Station to depose that they have seen the accident. Both of them are not residents of Naraingarh. AW-2 Raj Kumar has admitted that he has no ration card at Naraingarh nor his name appeared in the voter list of Naraingarh. Both these witnesses have tried to state that on the night of 14.11.1983 they were sleeping at the bus stand of Naraingarh. Naraingarh bus stand has no facility for the stay of any passenger as is proved by the statement of witnesses examined by the respondent. AW-2 Raj Kumar is Cobbler by profession. AW-3 Ram Pal wanted to go to Raipur Rani from Naraingarh. He came from Ambala. It is contended that from Ambala itself he would have got a bus for Raipur Rani, hence there was no reas