the bus. No doubt, Ex.P8 discloses the place of the accident and the same is a rough sketch produced by the claimants. However, both the parties have not examined the I.O. When a specific defence has been taken in the written statement that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the driver of the car as well, the respondent ought to have examined the driver of the bus. In the cross-examination of PW.1, though specific suggestions were made that the accident occurred on account of his negligence, nothing worth has been elicited from the mouth of PW.1. He denied all the suggestions. However, taking into note of the document-Ex.P8, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the driver of the car also contributed to the accident. On perusal of sketch at Ex.P8, it is clear that the width of the road is 24 feet and the accident took place, where a provision was made to enter the road and a lorry was also proceeding on the same road. In the written statement, a specific defence was taken that the road work was going on and hence, provision was made for all the vehicles moving from opposite direction to proceed on the same road. The sketch clearly discloses that the car was proceeding on the left side of the very same road and the bus came towards right side and hit
