( 1 ) U. P. STATE Roadways Transport Corporation by this appeal has assailed the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as M. A. C. T), inter-alia on the grounds that the claim petition did not disclose any cause of action. Neither there are any averments nor description of negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. In the absence of any particulars of negligence and the cause of action having been pleaded, the petition ought to have been dismissed. That there were glaring contradictions in the statement of the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants. In the absence of consistency their testimony ought to have been rejected. Moreover, the witnesses adduced by the claimants were not cited as witnesses by the police in the criminal case. Hence, no reliance should have been placed on their testimony. No award could have been given on equity or on sympathy.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the objections raised the facts in brief are that the deceased Avinash Kumar was running a business of selling artware. On 18th October, 1978 at about 8. 30 p. m. when he was going on his scooter, a bus (UPB-6446) belonging to U. P. State Roadw