Negligence on the part of the driver is generally essential to hold the negligent person liable in motor vehicle accident cases.

1. This appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act IV of 1939 is directed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, dated 5-10-1960, dismissing the appellants application for claim in respect of an accident caused by bus No. P. N. E. 8126 of the Punjab Roadways, Ambala on 21-12-1958, in which he (appellant) received some injuries. In this application he claims Rs. 25,000/- by way of compensation. This claim application was on 6-7-1960 dismissed in default but was later restored in August, 1960.

2. The trial of the claim application proceeded on the following issues:

1. Whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of bus No. PNE 8126, if so, to what effect?

2. What is the income of the applicant?

3. If issue No. (1) is proved in the affirmative what is the quantum of compensation to which the applicant is entitled.

4. Whether the application is time barred and whether it is a fit case where delay should be condoned?

5. Relief.

The first issue was decided against the appellant-applicant with the result that the remaining issues did not arise for consideration and the claim application was dismissed. The Tribunal in the opening part of its discussion on issue No. 1, noted the version of the accident as given by the claimant himself in his application. Therein, it had been stated that on 21-12-1958, which was a rainy day, the roads were wet and somewhat slippery. The driver of the Punjab Roadways bus in question by which he was travelling from Fort Bahadurgarh (Patiala) to Delhi tried to overtake another bus going ahead of his. Either due to slippery road or due to some mechanical defect, the driver of the Punjab Roadways but lost control of the steering wheel with the result that it had a head on collision with a bus coming from the opposite direction in the jurisdiction of P. S. Shambu, District Patiala. As a result of this accident, more than half of the travellers of the Punjab Roadways but including the claimant, were injured; the travellers of the other bus also received injuries.

After dealing with the evidence led at the trial, the Tribunal considered it important to look at the version given by the claimant himself immediately after the accident. The note made by the claimant in the complaint book which was with the conductor of the bus is in the following terms: "I was sitting on the front seat of bus No. PNE 8126 bound to go to Delhi. It so happened that this bus due to rain had a slip and struck against the bus coming from the opposite direction, I. e. Ambala side. Both the drivers did their best to save the accident but of no use. Passengers of both the buses had injuries."

This note is under the signatures of the appellant who was a D. S. P. I/c. Fort Bahadurgarh and is dated 21-12-1958 and was made at 11 A.M. A.W. 2/3, a copy of the report sent by the claimant to the Superintendent of Police, Ambala was then taken into account by the Tribunal. This letter reads as follows: "It is to bring to your kind notice while I was proceeding on duty from Fort Bahadurgarh to Gurgaon on 21st December, 1958, the bus I was travelling collided against another bus coming from the opposite direction, in between Rajputra and Ambala (in jurisdiction of P. S. Shambu) at 11-00 A.M. Both the buses belonged to Punjab Roadways. Along with other passengers I received severs injuries on my person. An X-ray picture of my left leg revealed fracture, dislocation of the lower end of tibia. I am under observation at Dr. Joshis Nursing Home, Karol Bagh, Delhi.

It is requested that the Police concerned may, please, be informed for taking necessary action in the matter."

The next occasion on which the claimant gave his version was in May, 1959, when he submitted his application and which has already been noticed above. From this material, the Tribunal inferred that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus as none was mentioned by the claimant who was holding the positio