Interestingly, this driver R1W1, during cross, also volunteered to depose that his bus was parked with 48 passengers on one side of the road and the driver of the other vehicle came from wrong side and hit the stationery bus resulting in the accident. Such deposition of R1W1, it requires no elaboration, was certainly beyond pleadings. In fact, quite contrary to the pleadings. The Tribunal took note of it and rejected such deposition and held that the motor accident, in which the deceased had sustained the fatal injuries, was the resultant effect of rash and negligence driving of the bus. In reaching such conclusions, the Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that in the FIR, and, the charge sheet, that came to be filed on the culmination of the investigations by the police, the driver of the bus was found to be driving the bus rashly and negligently. In the given facts and circumstances therefore, merely, the two vehicles collided head on, in the absence of establishment of an act or omission attributable to the deceased, none of which has come to be pointed out during the course of hearing, the plea raised on behalf of the appellant for any negligence attributable to the deceased, is wholly unfounded and misconceived. Contention so raised is therefore rejected. Though, learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the deceased was, possibly, holding a fake DL inasmuch as it was issued by the transport authority at Nagaland, whereas, he himself was resident of Bihar, and, therefore, a presumption of contributory negligence be drawn. Such submission is equally unfounded. It appears to have been made for the sake of it. It is unmerited, firstly, for the reason, nothing cogent came to be pointed out that the DL held by the
