12.2.P.W.3 specifically deposed that due to the rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle, the said insured bus dashed against the on coming Transport Corporation bus. After the said collision the rod protruding from on coming bus, namely Transport Corporation bus caused injury to the claimant/Minor. The said evidence was corroborated by R.W.1. Therefore, the injury was not caused as projected by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. According to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the rod was protruding from the Corporation bus and the said rod caused injury to the claimant/Minor at the time of the crossing the vehicle. The same was not evidenced before the Court below. According to the claimant, only due to the impact caused by the private bus/insured by dashing against the oncoming Corporation bus, the rod came off from the said bus. The said evidence is substantiated by the FIR, final report and the plea of guilty made by the bus driver. It is well settled principle, once the plea of guilty was made by the bus driver, as per the law laid down by the various High Courts and also the Hon'ble Supreme Court, unless the admission in the said case was otherwise explained by the driver of the bus, the same is admissible to show that there was a negligence. To that extent, this Court relied the plea, made before the Criminal Court.
