The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur to establish negligence in the accident and the assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) THE 6 captioned appeals and the 2 cross-objections in f. A. O. Nos. 864 and 865 of 2003 arise out of the same accident involving a bus owned by U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and a Maruti car bearing No. DL 1c-F0943.

( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, the bus and the car had a collision. This fact has not been disputed by the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation. However, parties were at variance as to how the accident took place and who was rash and negligent.

( 3 ) AS a result of the accident Anoop verma, Nitesh Verma, Renuka Verma and s. K. Singhal, all travelling in the car died. Anita Verma and Ashish Verma sustained injuries.

( 4 ) DEPENDANTS of the deceased filed claims for compensation. The injured did likewise.

( 5 ) AFTER discussing the evidence on record pertaining to the accident and holding the driver of the bus guilty of rash and negligent driving, learned Tribunal proceeded to determine the compensation to the claimants.

( 6 ) SINCE a common question arises in all the appeals pertaining to the findings of the Tribunal relating to the manner in which the accident took place, it would be advisable for me to look into the findings of the Tribunal and the evidence on record to satisfy myself regarding the findings returned by the Tribunal.

( 7 ) SUFFICE would it be to record that principles of res ipsa loquitur apply. If, the admitted facts brought on record are such wherefrom an inference can be drawn akin to the facts speaking for themselves, I need do no more but to apply the principles of res ipsa loquitur after noting the admitted facts.

( 8 ) THE first and foremost admitted fact is that the bus in question and the motor vehicle met with an accident. The second admitted fact is that the bus was proceeding from the town of Rishikesh to town of haridwar. The next admitted fact is that maruti car was proceeding from Haridwar town to Rishikesh. The next admitted fact is that the car was found at a distance backwards by 10 ft from the site where the vehicles collided. The next admitted fact is that the front of the car was found facing the town of Haridwar. The next admitted fact is that the car was on the. left side of the road and the bus was found on the wrong side. The next admitted fact is that the front of the car was totally smashed and the car was totally written off. The next admitted fact is that 4 out of the 6 persons travelling in the car died at the spot.

( 9 ) THE aforesaid facts are sufficient to establish that the car was hit with great momentum.

( 10 ) WEIGHT of a moving object multiplied by its speed gives to us the momentum.

( 11 ) THE damage caused to the car shows that the bus and the car collided with each other at a higher speed. It could be argued that an inference could be drawn that either both were driving at a high speed or either one of them was being driven at a very high speed. To break this impasse it would be relevant to project the fact that it was the bus which was on the wrong side. The said fact establishes that it was the bus which went out of control and a presumption would, therefore, legitimately arise that the driver, being in high speed, lost control of the bus. The inference gets fortified by the fact that the car was pushed back by 10 ft. If the bus was in normal speed and the car was being driven at a very high speed, the car would not have been pushed back by 10 ft. Obviously, even after the impact, the bus continued to move at least a distance of 10 ft. This also shows that it was the bus which was being driven at a break neck speed. Lastly, the car reversing its position shows that the car rotated by 180. It is impossible for the car to have rotated by 180 if the bus was not travelling at a high speed and the car was being driven at a high speed.

( 12 ) ADMITTED facts speak for themselves and, therefore, I need speak no further. However, we have the testimony of two surviving occupants of the car who have withstood the test of cross-ex