JUDGMENT : R.C. Mankad, J. This appeal by the owner of the Motor Truck bearing No. GTP 4051 involved in the accident, is directed against the judgment and award dated August 23, 1977, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Junagarh District at Junagarh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in M.A.C. Petition No. 68A of 1974. 2. Respondents Nos. 1(1) to 1(8) (hereinafter referred to as the "claimants") are the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Rabari Ala Rama (hereinafter referred to as the "deceased"), who had filed the aforesaid petition claiming compensation for the death of the deceased, who was killed in a vehicular accident, which took place on Porbandar-Jamnagar High-way on November 13, 1972. None of the claimants was present, at the time when the accident occurred and, therefore, they did not have any personal knowledge regarding the manner in which the accident occurred. It, however, appears that respondent No. 2 ("driver" for short) an employee of the appellant, who was driving truck, had lodged First Information Report ('F.I.R.' for short) at the Bagavadar Police Station in regard to the accident. In this F.I.R. the driver had stated that the accident occurred at about 5-30 P.M. on November 13, 1972. In this F.I.R. the driver had stated that he had taken unauthorised passengers in the aforesaid truck bearing No. GTP 4051, and while he was driving the truck in rash and negligent driving manner, one of the passengers fell down from the truck and was killed. It appears that it was on the basis of this F.I.R. that while making the application in the prescribed form. The claimants had, while giving the details of the accident, stated in column 10 that the deceased was going to Porbandar in public career bearing No. GTP 4051, which was driven in rash and negligent manner by the driver and that when the truck came near Bharvada village, the deceased was thrown off the truck and he received fatal injuries and died on the spot. This statement obviously was made on the basis of what had the driver stated in his F.I.R. lodged at the police station, because as pointed out above, the claimants did not have any personal knowledge about the manner in which the accident occurred. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs. This statement obviously was made on the basis of what had the driver stated in his F.I.R. lodged at the police station, because as pointed out above, the claimants did not have any personal knowledge about the manner in which the accident occurred. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 40,000/- under various heads from the appellant and the driver of the truck and prayed that respondent No. 3 Insurance Company with which the truck was insured be made liable to pay compensation payable by the owner of the truck to them. The appellant that is the owner and respondent No. 3 Insurance Company resisted the claim petition. The main defence of the appellant was that he had instructed his driver not to allow any passengers to travel by the truck and he was also told that the truck was to be used only for transporting goods. The case of the appellant was that the deceased forcibly sat in the truck and he jumped off the truck after he travelled some distance. It was alleged that the deceased received injuries not on account of any rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver but because he jumped off the truck. It was, therefore, contended that the owner of the truck was not liable to pay any compensation or damages to the claimant for the death of the deceased. 3. The defence of the third respondent, Insurance Company was that the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured with them. According to the Insurance Company, in absence of any documentary evidence, it could not be said that the truck was insured with them. In substance the defence was that since there was no insurance policy, produced evidencing insurance coverage of the truck, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation. The Insurance Company also disputed the claim of the claimants on merits. It denied that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck. It further urged that since terms and conditions of the policy of insurance provided that no gratuitous passengers can be carried in a public career, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased who was a passenger in the truck. 4. It further urged that since terms and conditions of the policy of insurance provided that no gratuitous passengers can be carried in a public career, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased who was a passenger in the truck. 4. The Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence on record held that the accident was caused as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck and that claimants were entitled to claim compensation for the death of the deceased, who died as a result of the fatal injuries received in the accident. The Tribunal held that the appellant and the driver were liable to pay compensation of Rs. 21,000/- to the claimants, but since the insurance policy did not cover passenger's risk, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the said compensation to the claimants. In the result, while holding the appellant and respondent No. 2 liable to pay compensation of Rs. 21,000/- to the claimants, the Tribunal rejected the claim as against the Insurance Company. The appellant, who is caner of the truck, being aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal has preferred this appeal. 5. At the hearing of this appeal, Mr. S.M. Shah, learned Counsel for the appellant did not challenge the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck on the part of the driver. He, however, urged that the Tribunal was wrong in not holding the Insurance Company liable for payment of the compensation payable to the claimants. Mr. Shah did not press the appellant's contention that the Tribunal ought to have permitted the appellant to examine the driver as witness. Mr. Shah submitted that how the accident occurred should be decided on the basis of the evidence on record. 6. As already stated above, the claimants did not have any personal knowledge regarding the accident. No eye-witness has been examined on their behalf. We do not know whether there was any eye-witness to the accident. The only person who had knowledge about the accident was the driver of the truck, but unfortunately, he has not appeared before the Tribunal, nor has his evidence been recorded. It was strenuously urged by Mr. No eye-witness has been examined on their behalf. We do not know whether there was any eye-witness to the accident. The only person who had knowledge about the accident was the driver of the truck, but unfortunately, he has not appeared before the Tribunal, nor has his evidence been recorded. It was strenuously urged by Mr. K.L. Abichandani, learned Counsel for the third respondent Insurance Company that the case should be decided on the basis of the pleadings and the F.I.R. which was lodged by the driver. He urged that the claimants must fail or succeed on the basis of the case pleaded by them in their claim application and it is not open to them or the Court to make out a new case to hold the Insurance Company liable. In a case like this, where there is no oral evidence about the manner in which the accident occurred. We have to reconstruct the accident on the basis of the physical facts as they were found soon after the accident. We do not agree with Mr. Abichandani that the claim of the claimants has to be decided on the basis of the pleadings and F.I.R. lodged by the driver. The claimants, as has been pointed out more than once, had no personal knowledge about the accident, and, therefore, whatever they stated in their claim application regarding the accident was not based on their personal knowledge. As pointed out above, it appears that the details of the accident given in the claim application appears to be on the basis of the F.I.R. which perhaps was the only material available with the claimants when they filed the claim application. In the F.I.R. the driver stated to the effect that the deceased who was one of the unauthorised passengers in the truck fell down from the truck, or was thrown off from the truck when the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. We are not prepared to accept the correctness of the version of the accident given in the F.I.R. in absence of the evidence of the driver. The driver was interested in giving incorrect version of the accident to save his own skin. We are not prepared to accept the correctness of the version of the accident given in the F.I.R. in absence of the evidence of the driver. The driver was interested in giving incorrect version of the accident to save his own skin. Apart from that, the driver ought to have been examined in the Tribunal and unless the claimants had an opportunity to test his veracity by his cross-examination, no reliance can be placed on the version given by him in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. is brought on record only for the purpose of proving two facts, namely, (1) the deceased was killed by a vehicular accident caused by truck No. GTP 4051, and (2) the truck was driven by the driver. These are two facts which are established by the F.I.R. However, so far as the manner in which the accident occurred was concerned, the driver was the best person who should have been examined as a witness before the Tribunal. His version of the accident given in the F.I.R. cannot be accepted, unless his credibility is tested by his cross-examination. Therefore, so far as the F.I.R. is concerned, no reliance can be placed for the purpose of finding out how the accident occurred. In fact, adverse inference can be drawn against the driver and the appellant for not examining the driver who was the best person who could have deposed about the accident. It is obvious that had the driver been examined as a witness, the version given in the F.I.R. could not have been established. Fortunately, we have panchnama of the scene of accident which was drawn up soon after the accident occurred. This panchnama gives details of physical facts as they were found soon after the accident. From this panchnama, it appears that accident occurred on the Porbandar-Jam-nagar Highway about two kilometers from village Bharvada. Porbandar-Jamnagar Highway runs from south to north with Porbandar in the south and Jamnagar in the north. The width of the road at the place of the accident was 23 feet, out of which 12 feet was tar road. There were blood spots about I feet from the western edge of the rood. These blood spots were in the radius of 2 feet. The width of the road at the place of the accident was 23 feet, out of which 12 feet was tar road. There were blood spots about I feet from the western edge of the rood. These blood spots were in the radius of 2 feet. It would thus appear that the deceased was lying at a distance of about two feet from the western edge of the road after he received the fatal injuries. Around the blood spots following articles were found : a bamboo stick, a small tin box, Sudi, two cloth bags, two gunny bags and Bajra was lying on the road some of which was blood stained. Now, the offending truck was found lying at a distance of 616 feet from the spot where the accident occurred and it was facing south that is Porbandar side. Now, it appears from the evidence of the claimant No. 1 who is widow of the deceased that the deceased had gone for shopping to Porbander on the day previous to the day of the accident. According to the widow, the deceased had gone to purchase grains from Porbandar. It would appear that the deceased had purchased Bajra and was carrying this Bajra in cloth bags or gunny bags with him while returning home. From the fact that the deceased was carrying Bajra with him it would appear that he had already done shoping at Porbandar and as pointed out above was returning home. Now if that be so, he would not be travelling by the truck which was obviously going to Porbandar. The fact that the truck was going to Porbandar is evident from the fact that the truck was facing Porbandar side. The deceased who was returning home would not travel by the truck going to Porbandar. The deceased had gone to Porbandar on the day previous to the day of the accident and therefore, it is natural to suppose that when the accident occurred he was returning home from Porbandar. Therefore, the theory propounded in the F.I.R. that the deceased was travelling in the truck does not seem to be correct. The deceased had gone to Porbandar on the day previous to the day of the accident and therefore, it is natural to suppose that when the accident occurred he was returning home from Porbandar. Therefore, the theory propounded in the F.I.R. that the deceased was travelling in the truck does not seem to be correct. Further, if what is stated in the F.I.R. is true, the deceased would not fall down from the truck, or would not be thrown off the truck with two cloth bags, two gunny bags and stick, which were found near the spot where the dead-body was lying. The deceased would not hold these things in his hand while falling off the truck. And even if he has holding these things, they would not fall near the place where his body was found, but they would be found scattered at some distance away from his body. From the physical facts, as they are found after the accident, it appears to us that the deceased was knocked down by the truck going towards Porbandar while he was walking on the road and going towards his village. The version given in the F.I.R. is a totally false version given by the driver to save his own skin. In our opinion, the deceased received fatal injuries when he was knocked down by the truck of the appellant which was driven by the driver. We are not making out any new case for the claimants who did not have any personal knowledge about the manner in which the accident occurred. It is the duty of the Court to probe into facts and draw appropriate inference from the physical facts which were found soon after the accident. It is in a case like this that principle of res ipso requiter is attracted and it is the duty of the Court to reconstruct the accident or occurrence from the physical facts. In a case like this, in which the claimants who have no personal knowledge and most of whom are minors, cannot be bound by what has been stated in the application. Again, as already pointed out above, what is stated in the claim petition is not on the basis of personal knowledge, but on the basis of the information which was in their possession. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the contention raised by Mr. Again, as already pointed out above, what is stated in the claim petition is not on the basis of personal knowledge, but on the basis of the information which was in their possession. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the contention raised by Mr. Abichandani on behalf of the respondent Insurance Company, and we hold that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck on the part of the driver when the deceased was walking on the road. If this view is taken, it was not disputed that respondent No. 3 Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. We may also mention that Mr. S.M. Shah learned Counsel for the appellant also conceded that the accident has occurred in the manner in which we have constructed as above. In other words, even according to Mr. Shah, the deceased was knocked down by the truck while he was walking on the road along with his cloth bags etc. 7. No arguments were advanced so far as the quantum of compensation awarded was concerned. In fact, we find that the compensation, which the Tribunal has awarded to the claimants is less than reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Court. 8. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed and it is further held that respondent No. 3 Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation awarded to the claimants. Respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit in the; Tribunal amount awarded together with interest and costs within six weeks from to-day. The amount awarded and apportioned to each of the claimants together with proportionate interest shall be invested in Fixed Deposits initially for a period of 63 months with a nationalised bank. The claimants will not be entitled to raise any loan, nor will they be entitled to encase the fixed deposits till the date of maturity. The claimants shall, however, be entitled to withdraw interest accruing due on the fixed deposits. Claimant No. 1 shall be entitled to withdraw interest payable to minor claimants till they attain majority. The costs, subject to payment of court fees, if any, shall be paid to claimant No. 1 on behalf of all the claimants. Orders accordingly with no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.