A perusal of the records shows that the Tribunal, after considering Ex.P1 First Information Report and the evidence of P.W.2-eyewitness, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant's bus and fixed the liability on the part of the driver of the bus. We have perused the evidence of P.W.2-eyewitness, wherein, he cogently deposed about the occurrence. The appellant Corporation has not examined any witnesses apart from the driver of the bus (R.W1). We are of the view that since he is the interested witness, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration his evidence. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant Corporation that the evidence of the driver of the appellant's bus was not taken into consideration, is not acceptable. Further, the contention of the appellant that the deceased had consumed alcohol, has not been proved through any witnesses. In the Postmortem Report (Ex.P2), there is no remark to the effect that the deceased had consumed alcohol and under the influence of alcohol. Hence, the contention of the appellant that the deceased was in a drunken condition, is not 6/11
