Honble GUPTA, J.–This appeal u/s. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has been preferred by Shanker Ram, whose claim petition was dismissed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur vide Judgment dated 25.4.1986. (2). In the claim petition, it was averred that Shanker Ram, appellant was urinating on the left side of the road at Bhavi bus stand. Jeep No. RJT 3503 driven by Amara Ram struck him and he suffered various injuries. It was further averred that Claimant had to remain hospitalised and sent huge amount on his treatment. It was also averred that he used to earn Rs. 1,200/-per month prior to accident whi-ch income he could not make afterwards. It was prayed that he should be allowed Rs. 2,00,000/-as compensation. In the written statement, the accident was denied. It was stated that on 13.4.1983, jeep was not on the road ant the respondents have been unnecessarily impleaded in this case. The Tribunal framed 3 issues. Claimant Shanker Ram entered into the witness box and examined PW 2 Harsukh Ram and PW 3 Pukhraj. In rebuttal DW 1 Narendra Raj and DW 1 Amara Ram entered into the witness box. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties, found under Issue No. 1 that it was not proved that Shanker Ram sustained injuries because of rash and negligent driving of Jeep by Amara Ram. Under Issue No. 2, it was found that if issue No.1 had not been decided against claimant, he would have been entitled to get Rs. 6,000/-as compensation. Ultimately, the claim petition was dismissed. (3). Arguments of learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused. (4). Mr. Panwar, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has erred in disbelieving the statement of claimant on the basis of his so-called statements recorded in criminal case for which he was not confronted dur-ing his cross-examination. He has placed reliance on the cases of Surendra Kumar vs. M/s. B.R. Oil Mills & Ors. (1) and Hansraj & Anr. vs. Neelam Chopra & Ors., (2). (5) Mr. Beniwal, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has contended that the Tribunal has not erred in deciding Issue No. 1 against the peti-tioner as he had not examined the eye-witness named in the FIR. (6). I have carefully considered this argument. (1) and Hansraj & Anr. vs. Neelam Chopra & Ors., (2). (5) Mr. Beniwal, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has contended that the Tribunal has not erred in deciding Issue No. 1 against the peti-tioner as he had not examined the eye-witness named in the FIR. (6). I have carefully considered this argument. A reading of the judgment of Tribunal shows that it has disbelieved the statement of claimant on the ground that claimant had deposed in the criminal case against Amra Ram that he was not driving the Jeep, but one Babu Ram was driving the same. The Tribunal has further observed that Bhanwar Lal, alleged eye-witness to the incident had also deposed before the criminal Court in his statement (Ex. P/2) that the Jeep was being driven by Babu Lal. (7). Considering Sec. 145 of the Evidence Act, it has to be held that the approach of the learned Tribunal was erroneous when it used the previous state-ment of the witnesses without confronting them with those statements. Bhanwar Lal was not examined before the Tribunal as eye-witness. Shanker Ram was not put any question regarding his deposition before the criminal court. It is relevant to state that the statement of Shanker Ram before Tribunal was recorded on 7.10.1985; whereas the said statement before the criminal Court of the witness bea-rs the date 7.5.1985. Thus the statements before the criminal court was recorded prior in time. Still Shanker Ram was not confronted with this statement when he was in the witness box. As such, this statement could not be used to disbelieve Shanker Ram. This Court in the case of `Surendra (supra) has held that it is not only the requirement of Sec. 145 of the Evidence Act that the witness is confronted with earlier statement, but also the principles of natural justice and equity also require that one must be allowed to explain in what circumstance he gave earlier statement. The Tribunals should have decided the matter on the basis of evidence produced in this case. (8). Shanker Ram has deposed that when he was urinating, the Jeep had hit him and at that time, it was being driven by Amra Ram. It cross-examination, he has deposed that he knew Amra Ram front before and that it was not correct that he could not see Amra Ram at that time. (8). Shanker Ram has deposed that when he was urinating, the Jeep had hit him and at that time, it was being driven by Amra Ram. It cross-examination, he has deposed that he knew Amra Ram front before and that it was not correct that he could not see Amra Ram at that time. Hansmukh Ram (PW2) has deposed that he was sitting some 50 steps away and he had seen Jeep driver PW 3 Pukhraj has also deposed that he was standing 10 to 15 steps away, when he saw that the Jeep had hit Shanker Ram while he was urinating. (9). In my opinion, there was absolutely no reason to disbelieve Harsukh Ram and Pukhraj. They could not be disbelieved on the mere ground that they belonged to different villages. The accident had taken place at the bus stand. It was natural that the person would come from different sides at the bus stand. It may be noted that neither Pukhraj nor Harsukh Ram was asked any question as to in what connection, they had reached there at the bus stand. (10). The evidence of the respondents is merely denial. It is relevant to state that in the written statement, it was averred that because of the enmity, the case has been brought against them. However, not a single question was asked to Shanker Ram in his cross-examination that he bore ill will against the respondents. Even both the non-petitioners/ respondents have not deposed that there was enmity between them and Shanker Ram. In these circumstances, the court was not justified in accepting the statement of non-petitioners in preference to the evidence of the claimant. (11). It was not necessary for the claimant to have examined all the persons who had seen the occurrence. Apart from this, if the respondents were sure that the persons named in the FIR had seen the occurrence, they could examine them. Atleast no adverse inference can be drawn against claimant for their non-examination. (12). The upshot of the above discussion is that the Tribunal erred when it found that Shanker Ram was not hit by the Jeep No. RJT 3503 driven by Amra Ram. The Jeep was of course seized by the police 20 days after the occurrence, but it cannot be a ground to hold that this jeep was not involved in the accident. The Jeep was of course seized by the police 20 days after the occurrence, but it cannot be a ground to hold that this jeep was not involved in the accident. Thus Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of claimant. (13). The Tribunal has held that a sum of Rs. 6,000/-would have been just compensation in the case. Shanker Ram had deposited that he had suffered injuries on his both arms and legs, and he remained in hospital for about one and half mon-ths and there was surgery. According to him, he had spent Rs. 4 to 5 thousands in the treatment. The claimant has not proved any document in support of his case of expenditure in the treatment. Even the injury Report has not been proved on record. The X-Ray films are lying on the file but they have not been proved. In these circumstances, it was not proved on record that Shanker Ram had suferred griev-ous injuries or fracture or that he had to remain in hospital. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in assessing Rs. 6,000/-as just compensation. (14). No other point was pressed before me. (15). Consequently this appeal succeeds. The judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and Award of Rs. 6000/-is passed in favour of claimant/ appellant against both the respondents. No order as to costs. _