JUDGMENT H.T. Narendra Prasad, J. - This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act , for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.01.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 31.05.2014 at about 4.15 p.m., the deceased Karthik Kumar was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-02/TR-671 on the left side of the road near Udayapura bus stop, NH-75, BM road, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District. At that time, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-13/F-2047 came from Hassan in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the pedestrian by name Devaraju and further went ahead and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to the impact the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries on 06.06.2014. 3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of accident and was a student of 3rd semester B.E. and he had a bright future and because of his untimely death, the claimants were put to great hardship. Hence, the claimants claimed compensation. 4. On service of summons, the respondent appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that there is no accident as alleged by the claimants. It was further pleaded that the bus was plying from Dharmasthala to Channarayapatna on 31.05.2014, at about 4.15 p.m. when it was near Udayapur the passengers got down from the bus and some boarded the bus and the bus was proceeding slowly from the bus stop, when it covered 60 mtrs. of distance the driver heard the sound from his back and in the back mirror he saw one green colour two wheeler motorcycle dashed against a pedestrian who was crossing the road near the divider and lost control over the bike and fell down. It awes further pleaded that there was no damage caused to the backside of the bike. It was further pleaded that the bus was not at all involved in the accident. It awes further pleaded that there was no damage caused to the backside of the bike. It was further pleaded that the bus was not at all involved in the accident. It was further pleaded that the deceased was riding his bike in a terrific speed in the village limits and failed to observe the pedestrians who were crossing the road and caused the accident. It was further pleaded that the claimants colluding with the police have filed a false case by implicating the bus. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined claimant No.1 mother of the deceased as PW-1 and got exhibited totally 26 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P26. On behalf of respondents, driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-13/F-2047 was examined as RW-1, conductor of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-13/F-2047 as RW-2, two passengers of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-13/F-2047 as RW-3 and RW-4, driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-19/F-2780 as RW-5, conductor of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-19/F-2780 as RW-6 and the CPI of Channarayapatna police station as RW-7 and got exhibited documents as Ex.R1 to R4. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the claimants have failed to prove that the accident in question is caused by the negligence of the driver of the KSRTC bus and hence dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. 6. The learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-13/F-2047. Immediately after the accident one Shivalingegowda who is the eyewitness has lodged a complaint against the driver of the KSRTC bus and the police have registered the FIR and after thorough investigation have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the KSRTC bus. Immediately after the accident one Shivalingegowda who is the eyewitness has lodged a complaint against the driver of the KSRTC bus and the police have registered the FIR and after thorough investigation have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the KSRTC bus. It is very clear from Ex.P3 panchanama, Ex.P5 Motor Vehicle Accident report, EX.P6 sketch, the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus, but the Tribunal only on the basis that the complainant - eyewitness has not been examined and RW3 and RW- 4 have not been cross examined has wrongly given a finding that the claimants have failed to prove that Karthik Kumar died due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the KSRTC submitted that the KSRTC bus was not involved in the accident, they have examined the driver and conductor of the bus, who have categorically stated that the bus was not involved in the accident. In fact, the driver of the bus has given a complaint to the police, the police have not conducted any enquiry. Secondly, the respondent has examined the investigation officer and also two eyewitnesses who are the passengers of the bus. They have categorically stated that the bus was not involved in the accident. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of the parties and the materials available on record has rightly dismissed the claim petition. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 9. The specific case of the claimants is that on 31.05.2014 at about 4.15 p.m., the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle on the left side of Udayapura bus stop. At that time, the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-13/F-2047 came from Hassan in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the pedestrian one Devaraju and further went ahead and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to the impact the deceased fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately he was shifted to BGS Global hospital, Kengeri. Due to that injury deceased succumbed in the hospital on 06.06.2014. To prove their case the mother of the deceased was examined as PW-1. Due to the impact the deceased fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately he was shifted to BGS Global hospital, Kengeri. Due to that injury deceased succumbed in the hospital on 06.06.2014. To prove their case the mother of the deceased was examined as PW-1. It was stated that immediately after the accident one Shivalingegowda who is an eyewitness to the accident has given a complaint to the police, the police have drawn mahazar and spot sketch. After investigation police have filed charge sheet against the driver of the KSRTC bus. The Tribunal has given a finding that the claimants have not examined the complainant who is the eyewitness and they have also not examined any other eyewitnesses to support their case, RW3 and R- 4 who are said to be the eyewitnesses have not been cross-examined by the claimants and therefore their evidence cannot be disbelieved, dismissed the claim petition. Under these circumstances, in the interest of justice, to give one more opportunity to the claimants, the matter requires to be remanded for reconsideration. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. Liberty is reserved to the claimants to examine the complainant who is the eyewitness to the accident and any other eyewitness to prove their case, in accordance with law. The Tribunal is directed to give an opportunity to the respondents to cross-examine the additional witnesses to be examined by the claimants. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeal within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.