against the bus, the pillion rider fell down and therefore, submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not appreciating the oral testimony of R.W.1, which, according to him, is duly corroborated by the contents of Ex.P10 - F.I.R. and Ex.P11 - sketch, and further added that even, if it is taken for granted that the scooty was hit from behind, the pillion rider could have fallen only in front of the bus and that there was no possibility of the back wheel of the bus running over the pillion rider, causing death, this Court is not inclined to accept the above said contentions, for the reason that if there was any other vehicle, which was also involved in the accident, as averred and submitted, nothing prevented R.W.1, driver of the bus, from lodging a complaint to the police station, within whose jurisdiction the accident had occurred. Even accepting for argument sake, that it was an unknown motorcyclist, who had initially hit the scooty and thereafter, the scooty hit the right side of the bus, except R.W.1, nobody has been examined to corroborate his version. No document has been marked to support his version. However from the arguments, it could only be deduced that the appellant Transport Corporation has made an attempt to dislodge the case of the respondents/claimants, as regards the manner of accident, as spoken to by P.W.1 and duly corroborated by P.W.3, stated to be the eye witness.
