Judgment V.S.Aggarwal, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by Smt. Chand Kaur and others, hereinafter described as "the appellants" directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, dated 26.11.1985. By virtue of the impugned award, the learned Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants. 2. The relevant facts are that the appellants claimed compensation alleging that deceased Sukhdev Singh was earning Rs. 1600/-permonth. He was working as a driver and motor mechanic. He died as a result of rash and negligent driving of Mohinder Singh. The petition has been contested. The driver and owner of the vehicle (respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively) had filed a joint reply. It was denied that the death of Sukhdev Singh took place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 Mohinder Singh. On the contrary, it was asserted that the deceased himself was responsible for his death. On similar lines was the reply of the Insurance Company (New India Assurance Company Limited). It also took the plea that Mohinder Singh driver was not holding a valid driving licence. 3. The learned Tribunal held that it has not been established that the death of Sukhdev Singh took place on account of negligence or rash driving of Mohinder Singh. The findings on issue No. 1 were against the appellants. However still assessment of compensation was made at Rs. 76,800/-. But keeping in view the findings on issue No. 1, the claim petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal has been preferred. 4. The sole argument advanced was that the findings on the record establishes that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. It was not in controversy that if the finding on this issue is against the appellants, they are not entitled to the compensation. 5. In the present case, there is no controversy that Sukhdev Singh died as a result of the injuries received in the said accident. In order to establish that respon-dentNo. 1 was involved in the accident and that he was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, the appel-lants had examined Bakhshish Singh AW4. 5. In the present case, there is no controversy that Sukhdev Singh died as a result of the injuries received in the said accident. In order to establish that respon-dentNo. 1 was involved in the accident and that he was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, the appel-lants had examined Bakhshish Singh AW4. As per his statement, he was waiting at the bus stand of Manji Sahib Gurudwara at Ambala City when this accident took place Acceding to him the accident took place 4-5 pace, away from him and he blamed respondent No. 1 in this regard. But on closer scrutiny, the testimony of this witness cannot be believed. In his statement dated 28.7.1985 he did not give the number of the truck. His presence otherwise at the spot was doubtful because he was not an eye-witness named in the First Information Report, copy of which is Exhibit A-2. Not only that, he had appeared in the Court of the Tribunal on 8.1.1985. At that time his ex parte evidence was recorded. He had deposed that he had seen the accident at a distance of 15 steps. Later he admitted that he has bad eye sight and cannot see properly. He also gave different truck number. These factors make one to conclude that he has little knowledge about the accident and, therefore, his testimony was rightly ignored. 6. The other alleged eye-witness was Ved Singh AW6. It is he who had made the report to the police. In the said report, he had mentioned the truck No. as HRX-786 On 25.10.1985 when he appeared before the Tribunal, he gave the number of the truck as different. During cross-examination, he admitted that he had not seen the cyclist being hit by the truck. He had not noted the truck number himself. It is the public which told him the truck number. It is abundantly clear from the aforesaid that he is not an eye-witness and when such was the evidence, the Tribunal rightly ignored the same and concluded that it has not been established that the vehicle was being run rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1. There is no ground, thus, to interfere. 7. For these reasons, the appeal being without merit must fail and it accordingly dismissed. 8. Appeal dismissed.