PRITPAL SINGH,J. - (1.)CHANDER Pal, who was 17 years old, was employed with Jaspal Singh, respondent No. 1, in an Automobile Repair shop, statedly at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. On January 11, 1980, he was going on a scooter being driven by Nirmal Kumar. He was sitting on the pillion seat. The scooter struck against the foot-path due to which Nirmal Kumar and Chander Pal fell on the road. It is stated that a bus of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation driven rashly and negligently by Simer Chand, respondent No. 2, came from the side of the new bus-stand, Ludhiana, and unmindful of the scooterists lying on the road, he did not stop the bus and ran over Chander Pal who received fatal injuries and died at the spot.
(2.)THE claim of compensation filed by the parents of the deceased, namely, Dhani Ram and Smt. Durga Devi was dismissed by the Tribunal holding that they had failed to prove that the accident had occurred due to the rash or negligent driving of Simer Chand, bus-driver. The judgment of the Tribunal is now the subject-matter of the instant appeal.
The eye-witnesses of the accident are Kishan Dutt (PW 4) and Atam Parkash (PW 5). They have categorically deposed that the bus was being driven rashly by the driver when the accident took place. The bus was stopped at a distance of about 50 yards from the place of accident. The bus driver was apprehended and was detained till the arrival of the Police.

(3.)THE case of the bus-driver Simer Chand is that he was not involved. In the accident and that he only saw the scooter hitting the foot-path. His contention is that Chander Pal had died on account of the injuries received by him due to the fall from the scooter. This plea of the driver is evidently false and frivolous. It is the consistent testimony of the eye-witnesses Kishan Dutt (PW 4) and Alam Parkash (PW 5) that Chander Pal was run over by the bus being driven by bus-driver Simer Chand respondent No. 2. There is no reason to disbelieve their evidence which finds corroboration from the postmaster report which shows that the deceased had received multiple injuries including fracture of skull and rupture of heart. These injuries could not possibly have been sustained by the deceased by a mere fall from the scooter. On the contrary these injuries are consistent with the testimony of the eyewitnesses that the deceased had been run over by the bus. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly held that the deceased had died on account of the injuries received by him when he was run over by the bus driven by Simer Chand, respondent No. 2.