ORDER U.C. Maheshwari, J. 1. This appeal is directed by the Appellants-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act") being aggrieved by the award dated 19.9.2001, passed by 7th Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 323/1997 consolidated with Claim Case No. 386/97, whereby their claim regarding vehicular-death of Laxmi Narayan, has been dismissed. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on 30.5.1997 between 8:00 to 8:30 p.m. Laxmi Narayan the husband of Respondent No. 4, son of Appellant No. 1 and 2 while brother of Appellant No. 3 to 5, being fruits vendor was returning to his home with his handcart, on the way Respondent No. 1 while driving the offending vehicle (Metador) bearing registration number MP09/S-2377 in rash and negligent manner dashed him, resultantly he sustained injuries. He was taken to MY. Hospital Indore, in the course of treatment he succumbed to such injuries on 31.5.1997. On receiving the information merg intimation and FIR was registered at Police Station Aerodrome, in which the name of driver and number of the offending vehicle was not mentioned but in the investigation it was revealed that the Respondent No. 1 while driving the aforesaid vehicle in rash and negligent manner caused the alleged accident. On completion of investigation Respondent No. 1 was charge sheeted for the same. As per further averments the deceased being fruit vendor was earning Rs. 4,000/p.m. The Appellants and Respondent No. 4 were dependent on him. The deceased was aged about 25 years on the date of the incident. Initially the Appellants and Respondent No. 4 filed their separate claims bearing case No. 386/9 7 and No. 323/97 respectively but in pendency of the same Respondent No. 4 was inserted as claimant in the Claim Case No. 386/97. As per further averments the offending vehicle was registered in the name of Respondent No. 2 while the same was insured with Respondent No. 3. With the aforesaid averments the Appellants and Respondent No. 4 filed their claim for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- with a prayer to saddle its liability against Respondent No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. 3. In joint reply of Respondent No. 1 and 2 the averments of the claim petition are denied. With the aforesaid averments the Appellants and Respondent No. 4 filed their claim for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- with a prayer to saddle its liability against Respondent No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. 3. In joint reply of Respondent No. 1 and 2 the averments of the claim petition are denied. As per further averments, on the alleged date no accident took place by then vehicle, as such the aforesaid day being holiday their vehicle was stationed at their factory situated at Gomathgiri, Indore and was not plied. It is further stated that at first instance the FIR was registered against unknown vehicle but subsequently after four months on false averments the Respondent No. 1 was implicated in the criminal case and their vehicle was seized. In such premises the prayer for dismissal of the claim was made. 4. In reply of Respondent No. 3, by denying all the averments of the claim petition, it is stated that such vehicle was plied by its driver without having any valid and effective driving licence and thereby the terms and conditions of the policy was violated. The factum of insurance of offending vehicle with it was impliedly denied for want of verification. In such premises the prayer for dismissal of the claim was made. 5. In view of pleading of the parties after framing the issues and recording the evidence on appreciation of the same, taking into consideration the circumstance that immediately after the death of the deceased on registration of merg and FIR the number of vehicle and the name of its driver was not mentioned in the same, and by holding that the Respondent No. 1 was falsely implicated in the case and in such premises by disbelieving the alleged witness Gajraj Singh Rana (AW4), as he was not the listed witness of criminal case, the claim of the Appellants was dismissed. It was also held that the alleged accident was not the cause and consequences of any rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 1. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid dismissal, the Appellants have come forward to this Court with this appeal by impleading the wife of the deceased as Respondent No. 4. 6. It was also held that the alleged accident was not the cause and consequences of any rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 1. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid dismissal, the Appellants have come forward to this Court with this appeal by impleading the wife of the deceased as Respondent No. 4. 6. Shri V.R. Purohit, learned Counsel of the Appellants after taking me through the pleadings, evidence and the exhibited papers of the criminal case said that the Appellants had successfully proved their claim by examining the alleged eye-witnesses Gajraj Singh Rana (AW4), besides the other evidence. But this witness was disbelieved only on the ground that he was not the listed witness in the police report filed under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no condition precedent under the law that eyewitness of the claim petition must be the listed witness of the criminal case. As per settled prepositions every case is decided on the basis of its own recorded evidence. He continued his argument saying that merg intimation and FIR could not be treated to be encyclopedia for the alleged offence or the incident and mere on that basis the available evidence could not be disbelieved. It was also argued that the police report filed under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure being public document was admissible even without examining any witness, according to which the Respondent No. 1 met the alleged accident while driving the above mentioned vehicle. Such final report being filed by the independent agency after holding the investigation could not be disbelieved by the Tribunal but contrary to that the case was dismissed. He also argued that if in the opinion of the Tribunal the examination of alleged eye-witnesses of criminal case namely Nirmal Singh and Ashok was necessary to consider the claim of the Appellants then the Tribunal was bound to direct the Appellants to call and examine such witness. In support of this contention he placed his reliance on the decided case in the matter of Laxmi Wd/o Lt. Ashok Gontia and Anr. v. Nandlal Tahalramani and Ors. reported in 1999(1) MPLJ 240 and prayed for awarding the claim by allowing the appeal. 7. In support of this contention he placed his reliance on the decided case in the matter of Laxmi Wd/o Lt. Ashok Gontia and Anr. v. Nandlal Tahalramani and Ors. reported in 1999(1) MPLJ 240 and prayed for awarding the claim by allowing the appeal. 7. On the other hand by responding the aforesaid arguments Shri S.V. Dandwate, learned appearing counsel of Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company by justifying the dismissal of the claim said that such approach of the Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of evidence and also in conformity with law. According to his submission at the initial stage neither the number of offending vehicle nor the name of it's driver was mentioned in the merg intimation and the FIR subsequently on what basis the name of driver and the number of offending vehicle was inserted in the criminal case, the same has not been proved by any admissible evidence. He further said that the alleged eye-witnesses mentioned in the criminal case are not examined while Gajraj Singh Rana (AW4) was introduced after four years, as eye-witness of the incident only on recording of his deposition. In such premises, this witness has rightly been disbelieved by the Tribunal. He further said that even the investigation officer of the criminal case or any of the alleged witnesses were not examined in the case. In such premises the Tribunal has not committed any error in dismissing their claim. In support of his argument he also placed his reliance on some unreported cases of this Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Manohar Patel and Anr. passed in MA No. 96/2004 vide dated 23.1.2004, Karmchand Yogi and Ors. v. Kishan Singh and Anr. passed in MA No. 1034/05 vide dated 13.7.2007, Mohan and Anr. v. Suraj Singh passed in MA No. 2263/03 vide dated 23.12.2008 and in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Madhu Thakur, passed in MA No. 621/07 vide dated 5.11.2008 and said that such cases are decided in the identical factual circumstance and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 8. Having heard the counsel at length, I have carefully gone through the record and also perused the impugned award. Ltd. v. Smt. Madhu Thakur, passed in MA No. 621/07 vide dated 5.11.2008 and said that such cases are decided in the identical factual circumstance and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 8. Having heard the counsel at length, I have carefully gone through the record and also perused the impugned award. It is apparent that on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the claimant as well as Respondent No. 1 to 3, the claim of the Appellants and Respondent No. 4 was dismissed taking into consideration the averments of merg intimation (Ex.P-2) and FIR (Ex.P-1). According to which the alleged accident was caused by some unknown vehicle. Gajraj Singh Rana (AW4), the examined eyewitness of the incident has been disbelieved on the ground that his name was not mentioned in the list of witnesses filed with the police report (Ex.P-11) after holding the investigation under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also apparent fact on record that in the course of investigation after four months it was revealed that the alleged accident was the cause and consequences of rash and negligent driving of above mentioned vehicle by Respondent No. 1. Accordingly, in the police investigation it was revealed that above mentioned offending vehicle was driven by Respondent No. 1. It appears from the impugned record that aforesaid police report was disbelieved on the ground that neither the investigation officer of the criminal case nor the listed alleged eye-witnesses namely, Nirmal Singh and Ashok Kumar are examined and Gajraj Singh Rana (AW4) was disbelieved on the ground that he was introduced after four years from the date of the incident only on recording his evidence. 9. Looking to the profession of the deceased and the available circumstance, the Appellants appear to be illiterate persons and in their matter if the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Appellants could not establish their case with respect of vehicle and driver involved in the alleged incident by examining the alleged eye-witnesses of the criminal case and also the investigating officer, then in such situation the Tribunal was duty bound to help by directing the Appellants to lead the evidence of such witnesses in accordance with the requirement of the law. In the matter relating to social welfare of justice like the present case, the Court/Tribunal is not only an umpire to decide the case on the available evidence but if it appears at any stage that some material evidence was available and because of illiteracy or ignorance the same was not produced by the party then such party should have been directed to lead such evidence instead of dismissing the claim on account of non-examination of such witnesses. My aforesaid view is based on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Laxmi v. Nandlal Tahalramani reported in 1999(1) MPLJ 240 , in which it was held as under: 10. In motor accident cases where the litigant persons are illiterate, if the Tribunal finds that the evidence lead is not sufficient to establish the involvement of the vehicle which caused the accident in our opinion, it would be proper for the Tribunal giving a helping hand by directing the party to lead evidence in accordance with the requirement of law, as it is well settled that a Court/Tribunal is not to act as an umpire watching a battle of wits between the parties from a distance through telescope. The Court is charged with the responsibility of guiding the procedure and apprising the parties whenever necessary of their duties. As legal procedure is full of traps; if a litigant happens to stumble, the Court should discharge its responsibility except when this is the result of an attempt to be clever and over reach the Court or to do some thing inequitable to the other side. In the latter event the party concerned should be dealt with severely. 10. In view of the aforesaid on examining the case at hand, it is apparent that without directing the claimants to examine the listed eyewitnesses the claim petition was dismissed. Thus, in the avaiable circumstance and in view of the law laid down by this Court in the above mentioned case, I am of the view that after setting aside the impugned award dismissing the claim, the case should be remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to decide the same afresh by extending the opportunity to the claimants to examine the alleged eye-witnesses and investigating officer of the case. 11. 11. Although this Court does not have any dispute with, the principles laid down in the cases cited on behalf of the Respondent No. 3-Insurer but as the case is remitted back to the Tribunal in view of above quoted principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court at earlier point of time. Hence, at present the same are not helping to the Respondent No. 3 Insurer. 12. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is allowed in part and by setting aside the impugned award, the case is remitted back to the Tribunal with the direction to decide afresh after extending the opportunity to the claimants for examining the alleged listed eye-witness of the criminal case namely Nirmal Singh, Ashok Kumar and also the investigating officer and also by extending the opportunity to adduce the evidence in rebuttal to the Respondents without influencing from any observation or findings made in the impugned award or in the aforesaid order. 13. The parties present here are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 1 5.12.2009 to proceed with the matter in compliance of the aforesaid direction of the order and office is directed to send the record to the Tribunal immediately, in any case before 15.12.2009. 14. The appeal is allowed in part as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.