observed that the spot-panchanama shows that after the dash, the S.T.Bus proceeded for further distance of 82 feet. The Tribunal further observed that the spot-panchanama shows that the bus was totally on the wrong side of the road, on that ground, the Tribunal has observed that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the bus driver. I do not find infirmity in it. In my view, in written statement, the appellant has taken the stand that the deceased gave dash to the offending bus, whereas in oral evidence, DW1-the driver of bus has stated that the scooter skidded on the road and gave dash to the S.T.Bus. PW2, who is the eye-witness, has stated that due to dash given by the S.T.Bus, he was thrown away from the scooter. I find substance in the evidence of PW2 as, had the scooter skidded on the road, the deceased and pillionrider both would have died in the accident by coming under the wheels of the bus, and the pillion-rider would not have got a chance to rescue himself after skidding of the scooter on the road. Moreover, the spotpanchanama shows the negligence of the driver of the offending bus. It appears that to avoid his liability, the driver of the offending bus is putting blame on the deceased. Moreover, though the driver of the offending bus reported the incident to the police, after making enquiry, the police has registered the offence against the S.T.Bus driver, it shows negligence of the driver of the offending bus. Considering evidence on record, I do not find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased.
