from the date of the claim petition.
Both, the deceased on a motor cycle and the bus had stopped at the traffic light.
It is also their case that the accident occurred near traffic lights on the narrow Cart Road at the point near Gurudwara Singh Sabha and State Bus Terminal, Shimla, which is hardly 100 150 yards from the Gurudwara.
The evidence and the materials as discussed by the Tribunal and the High Court lead to the companyclusion that if the principle of preponderance of probabilities is applied, the Tribunal was right in giving a finding that the motor cycle of the deceased and the bus were involved in the accident.
The registration of the FIR against the driver soon after the accident was number denied and only a plea was taken that the criminal case was registered falsely and in fact the deceased was never hit by the bus.
The case of the respondent is that there was numberaccident involving the bus of the Corporation and in the facts of the case there companyld be numberquestion of rash and negligent driving attributed to respondent number2.
The deceased fell down and was fatally wounded leading to immediate death.
Further defence was taken that the deceased was an untrained driver and he himself fell down from the motor cycle and died due to his own fault.
When the light turned green, the vehicles started.
68 S/2 of 1995 and has set aside the Award dated 30.11.1998 whereby the appellants were allowed companypensation of Rs.2,74,000/ including the interim companypensation, if already awarded to them along with interest at the rate of 12 p.a.
The claim for companypensation was resisted on both the grounds One, that the bus was number involved in the accident and second, that the accident did number take place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent number2.
The order under appeal has also been criticized on the ground that reasonings are perverse and that the High Court failed to keep in view the apparent incorrectness of the defence plea which was of total denial of the case of the claimants that the bus of the respondent was involved in the accident with the motor cycle of the deceased and the deceased died due to such accident.
The respondent number2 allegedly moved the bus very fast in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the motorcycle by its side.
The main criticism of the High Court judgment is on the ground that the case should have been decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities as was done by the Tribunal whereas High Court has required a much higher degree of proof as if it was dealing with a criminal trial.
The appellants are claimants.
According to the learned companynsel for the appellants learned High Court was number justified in substituting its own findings in place of those of the Tribunal by disbelieving statement of PW.2 Shobha Ram and PW.6 Hemant Kumar.
They are aggrieved by the judgment and order under appeal whereby the High Court reversed the findings given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal II at Shimla in MACT No.
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. Heard learned companynsel for the appellants and learned companynsel for the respondent Himachal Road Transport Corporation.
