JUDGMENT Sabina, J. - Appellant has filed this appeal, challenging the award passed by the Tribunal dated 12.11.2017, whereby claim petition filed by the claimants was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal had erred in deciding Issue No.1 in favour of the claimants as the claimants had failed to examine any eye-witness to prove the said issue. Hence, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the claimants has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the claim petition was liable to be allowed, although, no eye-witness was examined by the claimants. In support of his argument he has placed reliance on the decision of this court in Smt. Rama Soni & Ors. Vs. Sher Khan & Ors. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous A ppeal No. 281/1996 decided on 13.10.2006, in Lrs. of Deep Singh Vs. Surendra Singh & Ors. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 487/2004 decided on 29.7.2016 and in Rugga Singh and others Vs. Prem Singh and others 2006 ACJ 1453 . 4. Claimants had filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of Nanu in the motor vehicle accident which had occurred on 19.6.2016. It was the case of the claimants that Nanu was travelling on his motorcycle on Mangliwas Highway. Truck bearing No. RJ- 32-GA-9195 came from behind, in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the motorcycle driven by Nanu. As a result Nanu suffered seriousness injuries and died. Deceased was a bachelor, aged 24 years, at the time of accident. 5. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- "i) Whether Shri Nana died in the road accident on 19.8.16 at about 2.30 pm at Near Choudhary Hotel, Magliwas on N.H. 8 which was caused by the Truck no. RJ32GA-9195 being driven by Resp. no. 1 in rash and negligent manner? ...claimants ii) Whether at the time of accident the OP.l was driving vehicle of the owner OP no.2 under his employment and for his benefit?...claimants iii) Whether at claim is liable to be rejected in the ground that driver (resp.no. 1) was not having valid driving licence and without permit and on the grounds of additional pleas taken by opposite party no.3 in its written statement? OP No.3. iv) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 77,34,000/- joinly and severely from the respondents ? 1) was not having valid driving licence and without permit and on the grounds of additional pleas taken by opposite party no.3 in its written statement? OP No.3. iv) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 77,34,000/- joinly and severely from the respondents ? v) Relief." 6. In order to prove Issue No.1 claimants had failed to examine any eye-witness. The only witness examined by the claimants was A.W.1 Shri Pema. The said witness had not witnessed the accident. It was necessary for the claimants to have proved that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.5 while driving the offending vehicle. Merely because challan had been presented in the criminal case, was not sufficient to decide Issue No.1 in favour of the claimants. The driver of the offending vehicle could be acquitted in the criminal case. So far as the claim petition was concerned, the claimants were required to examine the eye-witnesses to establish the manner of accident. Opposite party would have got an an opportunity to crossexamine the eye-witness to test his testimony with regard to the manner of accident. In the absence of examination of the eye-witness before the Tribunal, the opposite party has been denied its valuable right to cross-examine the said witness and establish their own plea. Although, as per the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimants given by Coordinate Bench of this Court (Single Bench), claim petition could be allowed in the absence of examination of eye-witness but in the considered opinion of this court, examination of an eye-witness before a claim petition could be allowed was essential. In case it is to be held that there was no need to examine an eye-witness and the claim petition could be allowed merely on the basis of the documents attached with the challan in the criminal case, then there is no need even to issue notice to the opposite party and the compensation could be granted merely on the filing of the claim petition alongwith challan papers. However, it cannot be done so. Before a claim petition could be allowed, the other party has to be heard. Claimants have to examine witnesses to prove the issues qua which onus is upon them. Other party gets a chance to cross-examine the witnesses and test the truthfulness of the said witnesses. 7. However, it cannot be done so. Before a claim petition could be allowed, the other party has to be heard. Claimants have to examine witnesses to prove the issues qua which onus is upon them. Other party gets a chance to cross-examine the witnesses and test the truthfulness of the said witnesses. 7. Since, in the present case claimants had failed to examine any eye-witness to prove Issue no. 1, the said issue was liable to be decided against the claimants. 8. Accordingly, finding of the Tribunal on Issue No.1 is reversed and the said issue is decided against the claimants. In view of the finding on Issue No.1, the claim petition filed by the claimants is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly appeal is allowed and the award 22.11.2017 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Consequently, claim petition filed by the claimants is dismissed.