JUDGMENT
S. Shamsul Hasan, J.
1. These three appeals are by different claimants under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, arising out of an accident in which their relations died. Three different claim cases arising out of the same accident were filed resulting in three judgments and consequently three appeals. All of them have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The fateful day is 20-6-1975 on which day an Ambassador Car bearing registration No. BRO 9495 was smashed by a Bus bearing registration No. BRI 168 at the National Highway No. 31 at Deona near Begusaraj, in which lives of as many as four persons, namely, Miss Binu Kewal Rarnani, Rajiv Ranjan Sinha, Chandreshwar Prasad Singh and Kuaiari Shashi Sinha, who were all boarding the car, were lost. While in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 22 of 1982, the appellant is the father of the deceased Miss Binu Kewal Ramani, in MA. 23 of 1982 the appsllant is the father of Rajiv Ranjan Sinha. In M.A. 179 of 1982, appellant No. 1 Chandrakanta Devi and her son appellant No. 2 lost two of their relations, namely, Chandreshwar Prasad Sinha and Kumari Shashi Sinha, aforesaid, being husband and daughter, respectively, of appellant Chandrakanta Devi.
3. I am afraid, in these appeals, this Court can bring little succour to the claimants for the tragic loss suffered by them which situation has resulted from the inadequacy of proper and effective evidence indicating about the manner of the accident. Broadly speaking, the case of the claimants in all these three cases is that the bus belonging to the Hindusthan Fertilizer Corporation which was performing its duty of reaching its occupants to their residence after duty dashed the car killing the occupants.
4. Applicants’ witnesses have been examined in two cases only, namely, M.A. 22 and MA. 23 but no eye witness on behalf of the applicant has been examined in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 179 of 1982. Regrettfully, the evidence of eye witnesses in the case were not filed in those cases in which there was no such evidence or different witnesses have been examined. I have, however, looked into the evidence of these witnesses as a whale because their evidence was material for the purposes of deteimining the nature of accident in this case. Also on the record, entirely without objection, are three photographs which indicate the manner in which the two vehicles involved in the accident that is, the bus and the car, were found placed at the time the photographs were taken. The Photographer is O.P.W. 1 in M.A. 179 of 1982. I have looked into his evidence also with the same intention and manner as I have done with the eye-witnesses examined on behalf of the applicants.
5. The case of the opposite party, mainly of the driver of the bus who was turned by the impact, was that the car was coming from the opposite direction at a considerable speed and was zig-zagging on the road seeing the manner in which the car was being driven, the driver of the bus parked the bus to the left side as far as he could go off the road to allow this .car to pass through. The car, however, dashed into the right side of the bus. From the photographs, the version given by the opposite party driver appears to be entirely correct and worthy of acceptance. The road appears to be fairly wide and the bus is found parked on the left side of the road on the flank. The motor is found dashed against the right side of the bus, the point of contact being the right side of the car which appears to be in a totally smashed condition. The road is so wide at the spot that the car could have easily passed and the driver of the car exercised even a reasonable caution. But for the negligence of the driver of the car, four lives have been lost.
6. The evidence of the eye-witnesses appearing on behalf of the applicants cannot be accepted because the story given by them appears to be highly implausible. If the bus was in the middle of the road and the car could not pass by it, the collusion would have been head on and not from the right side which is, the point of impact. Though, the witnesses City that the bus was being driven fast, there is no indication that the speed of the bus was such that could be described as; rash. The Motor Vehicle Inspector could not throw any light on the manner of the occurrence and in that connection his statement is entirely devoid of any information. He has not been; able to say at all whether some of the damages ware as a result of the1 accident or were contributory to the accident.
7. The claimant in MA. No. 23 of 1982, the father of the deceased-driver of the car, has stated that there were skid marks on the road which fact is also apparent from the photographs but that does not takes us very far because there is no evidence to show how these skids marks occurred and which vehicle faced the skids. Whether skinding was by the bus, or by the car is no one’s case and it is difficult for me to examine the effect of the skidding marks which could be due to many reasons. In the absence of any evidence in this regard, I do not want to indulge in guess-works “Taking the totality of the circumstances, I feel, and it is held, that the accident was caused neither by the, rash driving of the bus driver nor due to his negligence and consequently no liability can be fastened either on the bus driver of its owner or the Insurance Company that insured the bus.
8. Before I part with the judgment, however, there is another aspect. The car also, I take it, must have been insured. If that was so, then I fail to understand, why no claim was lodged against the company by1 the claimants who are claiming from the Insurance Company for the death of the occupants of the car other than the driver because in the face of the “negligence of that the driver of the car they Would certainly be entitled to be compensated. Claim on behalf of the driver has also to be examined from a different angle” if the accident was caused due to any damage to the vehicle itself like hydraulic brake failure or the snipping, of the steering wheel etc. and that claim also may hive to be’ satisfied by, the Insurance Company 1 make it clear that when I have held in this appeal that the driver of the car was negligent, I have done so only on the papers, in this case and on the basis of the evidence, available in this regard and that will not prejudice any subsequent inquiry. Further, any observation cither, than that also will not enure to the benefit of any party in any subsequent proceeding which has to Joe disposed of in accordance with law.
9. In the result, there is no merit in any of these three appeals and they are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.