JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') has been filed by the claimants feeling aggrieved by dismissal of their application for compensation by the judgment and award dated 23.09.1999 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sojat camp Jaitaran, District Pali ('the Tribunal'). 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants Naina Ram and Smt. Narayani, who are parents of Kum. Sumitra, filed an application for compensation before the Tribunal with the averments that on 29.09.1994 at about 9-10 AM on Pali main road near Bar in front of Pagariya Petrol Pump respondent No. 1 Jagannath was driving Jeep No. RJ01-C-0086 rashly and negligently and struck Sumitra, which resulted in grievous injuries to her and said Sumitra died during the course of her treatment. It was further stated in the application that deceased Sumitra was aged about 11 years and by undertaking sewing and agricultural operations, she used to earn Rs. 600/- per month. Rs. 2,000/- were claimed towards treatment expenses and, under various heads, claim for compensation was made for Rs. 3,62,300/-. 3. The application for compensation was replied by respondent No. 2. The Dy. Chief Engineer, Western Railways stated that the accident was not caused by the said vehicle. The First Information Report neither contain name of the driver nor the vehicle number. The respondents saw a injured girl in the middle of the road and asked the driver to stop the vehicle, who stopped the vehicle and took the said girl to hospital. The accident might have happened by some other vehicle and the alleged vehicle was not involved in the accident. Respondent No. 1 Jagannath - driver adopted the reply filed by respondent No. 2. 4. The Claims Tribunal framed three issues and on behalf of the claimants AW-1 Naina Ram, AW-2 Geeta and AW-3 Bheekam Chand were examined. No evidence was produced by the respondents. 5. The Claims Tribunal after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that it was not proved that the accident occurred by Jeep No. RJ01-C-0086 and consequently dismissed the application for compensation. 6. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the involvement of the vehicle is perverse and, as such, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the appellants be awarded just compensation. 7. 6. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the involvement of the vehicle is perverse and, as such, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the appellants be awarded just compensation. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment impugned and submitted that the Claims Tribunal has elaborately discussed the evidence on record and, as such, the same does not require any interference by this Court. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and perused the material placed on record. 9. There is no dispute on the fact that when the accident occurred on 29.09.1994 at about 9-10 AM, the father of deceased Sumitra, Naina Ram was not at the site of accident. His first version of the accident is the First Information report, which was lodged by him on 29.09.1994 at 06:00 PM with the Police Station Raipur, wherein, he had indicted unknown jeep driver as the accused. He had also indicated that Manoj Sharma, Dy. Chief Engineer, Western Railways had admitted his daughter in the hospital. 10. When the said Naina Ram was examined as AW-1, he specifically stated in his examination in chief that the Railway's jeep was being driven by respondent No. 1 Jagannath, at the time of accident Bheekam Chand Pagariya was present and besides Babli, Leela and Geeta were also present. He also stated that Bheekam Ji (Bheekam Chand) told him that the jeep came at a high speed and struck the girl resulting in her death. In the cross-examination the said AW-1 Naina Ram has stated that he met Bheekam Chand at the Petrol Pump and he told him that accident has occurred by the Railway vehicle, whose driver was Jagannath, whom he (Bheekam Chand) knows. He also claimed that whatever Bheekam Chand told him he has lodged in the FIR. In the end he has categorically stated that it is wrong that he has not indicated the name of the driver and number of the jeep in the FIR and further emphasised that if he had not indicated then how police would have arrested him. 11. AW-2 Geeta in her examination in chief had deposed that she was standing on opposite side of the petrol pump. 11. AW-2 Geeta in her examination in chief had deposed that she was standing on opposite side of the petrol pump. The jeep was being driven at a high speed, Sumitra fell down when she was struck by the jeep, first Bheekam Chand of the petrol pump came and then she went there. Bheekam Chand asked the name of the driver, which she did not remember. She further stated that she was taken to hospital from the same jeep, which was involved in the accident. In the cross-examination said AW- 2 Geeta stated that she herself did not see the accident. 12. AW-3 Bheekam Chand, in front of whose petrol pump, the accident had occurred has stated that the vehicle was in speed, after colliding, the vehicle went a bit forward and then came back, he had a talk with the driver, who accepted that he had committed a wrong, the name of the driver was Jagannath and the girl was taken in the same vehicle after the accident. In his cross-examination, he specifically stated that he had given the number and colour of the vehicle to Naina Ram as well as the name of the driver at the time he met him after he was called through Naval Kishore, a Gram Sewak after the accident. He further stated that when the accident occurred he was going through the accounts of his pump. 13. From the above statements of Naina Ram, Geeta and Bheekam Chand, it is apparent that it is claimed by both Geeta and Bheekam Chand that name of the driver Jagannath was asked when the said vehicle came back after the accident and injured Sumitra was carried in the jeep. Further Bheekam Chand specifically stated that he had informed Naina Ram regarding the vehicle number and name of the driver when he met him after the accident, on being called through Naval Kishore. However, despite claiming to know this fact which has been stated by the witnesses AW-2 and AW-3, non-mention of the name of the vehicle and the driver in the FIR prima facie creates a doubt on the veracity of statements made by AW-2 and AW-3. However, despite claiming to know this fact which has been stated by the witnesses AW-2 and AW-3, non-mention of the name of the vehicle and the driver in the FIR prima facie creates a doubt on the veracity of statements made by AW-2 and AW-3. The said doubt is further fortified by statement of Naina Ram, who has insisted that he had given out the name of the driver and vehicle in the First Information Report, which fact is not corroborated from the FIR Exhibit-1, therefore, the statements of Naina Ram, Geeta and Bheekam Chand in this regard cannot be relied on. Further, both AW-2 Geeta and AW-3 Bheekam Chand have in their cross-examination stated that Geeta did not see the accident and that Bheekam Chand was involved in the accounts at the Petrol Pump and, therefore, they cannot be relied on as eye witness to the said incident. But the plea of the respondent No. 2 that he was travelling in the jeep when he saw injured girl lying in the middle of the road and, therefore, carried her to the hospital is consistent with the version in the FIR where the AW-1 Naina Ram has specifically stated that she was brought to the hospital by Manoj Sharma. 14. The statements of AW-2 and AW-3 that the vehicle went ahead 10-15 feet after the accident and then came back and took the injured to the hospital and that at that time there were no other vehicle on the road is also a pointer to the fact that apparently the accident did not occur from the said vehicle because in normal circumstances if the jeep had struck Sumitra and was able to go forward 10-15 ft and there were no other traffic on the road there was apparently no reason for the jeep driver to come back to the site of accident and he could have very easily and conveniently rushed away from the site of accident. The facts apparently show that on humanitarian considerations the jeep on the instructions of the senior officer of Railways while crossing came back and took the injured child to the hospital and were thereafter wrongly involved in the accident accusing them of causing the accident. 15. The facts apparently show that on humanitarian considerations the jeep on the instructions of the senior officer of Railways while crossing came back and took the injured child to the hospital and were thereafter wrongly involved in the accident accusing them of causing the accident. 15. The Claims Tribunals has thoroughly discussed the evidence led by the parties and in view of the above discussion the said finding of issue No. 1 regarding alleged involvement of the vehicle and negligence of the driver does not require any interference by this Court.In the result, the appeal has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.Appeal dismissed. *******