In order to get compensation from another person, it is necessary to prove that death or bodily injury was caused to the claimant by the rash or negligent act of the driver of the vehicle.

P.C.Pandit, J.

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 310-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, dismissing the application of Hand Singh for the grant of compensation in respect of Injuries sustained by him on account of an accident, when he was travelling in a bus belonging to the Punjab Roadways.

2. it appears that on 5-12-1959 Nand Singh got into this bus for going to Chandigarh, when it started from Amritsar at 5-30 A.M. At about 7-00 A.M., when this bus reached near the Military Camp at Sura Nassi, which is about 4 or 5 miles from Jullundur, a bullock-cart was coming from the opposite direction. A cyclist was following this bullock-cart and when he tried to overtake it, ha came in front of the bus. Buta Singh, the driver of the bus, immediately applied the brakes in order to save the cyclist and since it was drizzling and the road was wet, the bus slipped and turned turtle with its face towards Amritsar side instead of Jullundur. As a result of this accident, the appellants collar bone was fractured and his right arm was injured. Nand Singh was taken to the Civil Hospital at Jullundur and, on his request, was brought to the Genera! Hospital, Chandigarh, and was admitted there as an Indoor patient. He remained there till 10-12-1959. On 19-1-1960 he filed an application for compensation for Rs. 5,000/-before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, who framed the following issues :

1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the Punjab Roadways?

2. What is the quantum of compensation due and from whom?

3. Relief.

3. After examining the evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Buta Singh, the driver of the bus, was not to be blamed and the accident was not die to his rash or negligent driving. On issue No. 2, it was found that since the driver was not at fault, no compensation could be granted to the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for compensation.

4. The first question for decision in this case is whether the accident in the present case had occurred due to any rash or negligent act of the driver.

5. Both sides had produced a number of witnesses, including a few passengers, who were actually travelling in the bus on that day. I was taken through the entire evidence and am of the view that the finding given by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 is correct. (His Lordship then discussed the evidence and proceeded :) From the above evidence, I have no manner of doubt that the driver was not at fault. He was riot going at a high speed. In order to save the cyclist, who was overtaking the bullock-cart, which was coming from the opposite direction, the driver applied the brakes and turned the bus to the left side of the road. Since it was drizzling and the road had become wet, the bus slipped and got unbalanced. Its wheel came down to the low gradient portion adjoining the road and the bus turned turtle. This was an unfortunate accident, but it was not due to any rash or negligent act of the driver.

6. The next question for decision is whether, under these circumstances, the appellant, who was admittedly, travelling in the bus and got injured due to this accident, is entitled in law to. claim compensation for the Injuries received by him and from whom. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even if this accident was not due to any rash or negligent act of the driver, the appellant could recover compensation for the injuries sustained by him from the Insurance Company, with which this vehicle was insured against third party risk. But since this bus belonged to the, Punjab Roadways, which Is owned by the Punjab State, and was, therefore, not Insured, the appellant was entitled to get compensation out of the fund created by the Punjab State in accordance with the provisions of Section 94 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. For this submission, the placed his reliance, only on th