S.K. Chawla, J. -- 1. This is an appeal by claimants from an award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short Tribunal), dismissing their claim.

2. On May, 1, 1983, in the early morning hours around 5 a.m., a motor accident had taken place at Sheopurkalan-road, in which one Asgar Ali, aged 45 years, was crushed on both of his legs and died on the following day in a hospital of those injuries. The vehicle in question was truck No. MPW9961 driven at that time by one Shyam Sharma (respondent no. 2 herein) and owned by one Nemichand (respondent no. 1 herein), which was insured with National Insurance Company (respondent no. 3 herein).

3. The case of the claimant/appellants, who are widow and children of the deceased, to the effect that accident occurred because of negligent driving of truck by the driver, was disbelieved by the claims Tribunal. On the other hand, the Tribunal accepted the version of the opposite parties that the deceased had committed suicide by laying himself under the moving truck. The Tribunal, however, gave finding even on the quantum of compensation in the event of claimants succeeding. The Tribunal held that the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 52,000/-. The claim was, however, dismissed on the finding already noticed that there was no negligence on the part of the driver and the accident occurred because the deceased wanted to commit suicide:

4. We were taken through the evidence recorded in the case We are clearly of the view that the finding of the Claims Tribunal that there was no negligence on the part of the truck driver in causing the accident and that the deceased himself wanted to commit suicide, was most unwarranted and perverse on the evidence that had appeared in the case. The claimants had examined one Munna (AW.3) as an eye-witness to the accident. In the F.I.R. (Ex. P-1) lodged by the deceased's brother-in-law Tayab Ali (AW.2), who had reached the spot on receiving information about• the accident, the name of Munna was .expressly mentioned as one of the eye-witnesses who had seen the accident Munna was, therefore, not a subsequently thought of or a got up witness. His evidence was that he and the deceased were going along the road in question in the direction of village Bhatiyapura. The deceased was walking ahead of him. They were going by the side of the road. A truck came with great speed from behind and without blowing any horn, knocked down the deceased. Both legs of the deceased got crushed under the front wheel of the truck. The driver ran way after the accident. It appears that Munna (A.W.3) was disbelieved by the Tribunal mainly on the ground that the happened to admit that he had not given any statement to the police about the accident, before he was examined in the Claim case. But this could not be conclusive of the fact that Munna's police statement was not recorded. This was Munna's impression which could be incorrect. Moreover, not unoften, it happens that police is not able to record statements of all the eye-witnesses touching an accident. It is wrong to disbelieve a witness solely on his admission that his police statement, to his reckoning, was not previously recorded. The decision in Varadamma v. H. Mallappa Gowda in 1972 A.C.J. 375 (Mysore) is in point in which it was observed that it was not proper to disbelieve a witness merely because police had not examined him as a witness.

5. The only witness examined on behalf of the opposite parties on the point of accident was the driver, namely; Shyam Sharma (N.AW.2). He said not a word in his evidence that anybody was lying on the road and came under his moving truck. He also said not a word that there had occurred any kind of quarrel between the deceased and his (deceased's) wife because the deceased wanted to sell his agricultural land but his wife wanted that he should not sell it. The version contained in written-statements of driver and owner was that there had occurred a quarrel before the acci