SINGH, J. : - This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against an award dated 30th April 1971 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Damoh, by which the claim of respondents 1 to 4 was allowed to the extent of Rs. 28,098/-.

2. On 17th July 1969 an unfortunate accident happened in which a passenger bus was swept away by the flood waters of the river Sunar as a result of which seven persons lost their lives. One Satyanarayan Rao, who was Block Extension Educator in Batiagarh, was among the seven persons who died in the accident. Respondents 1to 4, who laid the claim before the Tribunal, are respectively the widow, two minor sons and one minor daughter of the deceased Satyanarayan Rao. The passenger bus which was involved in the accident belonged to M/s. Chaurasia and Company, a partnership firm, which is the appellant in this appeal. The bus was going from Chhatarpur to Damoh. It was driven by John Victor, a driver employed by the appellant. While going from Damon to Chhatarpur Sunar river has to be crossed after Batiagarh. There is no regular bridge over the river; there is only a cause-way which gets submerged during floods. The bus reached Sunar river between 1 and 2 p. m. The river was flowing over the cause-way. There is a dispute between the parties as to the level of the water on the cause-way. The driver, in spite of the water flowing over the cause-way, drove the bus over it. After the bus had crossed about one third of the cause-way, it skidded towards the left and one of its wheels got stuck up in the stones embedded on the sides. The passengers remained inside the bus, but after some time when they found the water rising they climbed over the top of the bus. After one or two hours the bus was swept away by the flood and it rolled over as a result of which the passengers sitting on the top were thrown in the surging waters. Some of them were rescued; but seven persons including Satyanarayan Rao died. The Tribunal held that the accident happened due to the negligence of the driver in driving the bus and that the appellant was liable.

3. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no negligence on the part of the driver. It is argued that the water over the cause-way was only four to six inches and it was not unreasonable to attempt to cross the cause-way. It is pointed out that a police vehicle had crossed the river before the bus attempted to cross it. It is also argued that the passengers including Satyanarayan Rao were themselves negligent in remaining in the bus and they could and should have crossed the river by walking over the cause-way. It is then contended that the death of the passengers was caused by their own negligence and not by the negligent driving of the bus.

4. In our opinion, there is no substance in any of these contentions. Bhagirath (A. W. 5) was one of the passengers in the bus. He was also swept away but he could be rescued. His evidence is that at the time when the driver drove the bus over the cause-way the stones embedded on the sides were under water and they were not visible. According to him, there was about two feet of water on the cause-way. He has further stated that the strong current of water pushed the bus towards the left side and one of the wheels got stuck up in the stones embedded on sides of the cause-way. The driver could not extricate the bus. The passengers then alighted from the bus on the cause-way, but they found that the water was upto waist-level. The passengers out of fright again went inside the bus. Slowly and slowly the water went on rising and when it started pouring in from the windows of the bus, the passengers climbed on the top of the bus. The bus, after some time was pushed outside the cause-way by the current and later it rolled over. It will be seen that according to the statement of this witness the water level on the cause-way at the time when the driver drove the bus over