Prakash Narain, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Delhi by which the claim of the appellants under section 110a of the Motor Vehicles Act was dismissed on 27th August, 1966. ( 2 ) ON 14th December, 1964 at about 9. 45 p. m. Sikander Lal deceased, was involved in an accident with a D. T. U. bus having registration No. DLP-713 owned by respondent No. 2 and driven by Shiv Karan, respondent No. 1 on Najafgarh Road near Titarpur. Sikander Lal was injured in this accident and was removed first to Tilak Nagar Hospital but later to the Irwin Hospital where he died the next day leaving behind him Viran Devi, his morher, Phulawanti, his widow and three minor childran, one son, Amresh Kumar, aged 6 years and two daughters, Chanchal Kumari and Urmila Kumari, each aged 2 years. These heirs, legal representatives and dependents of Sikander Lal filed a claim in the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claim Tribunal for Rs. 80,000 - contending that Sikander Lal had met his death on account of injuries caused by the D. T. U. bus aforesaid driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the bus and on account of the wrongful act of the driver committed during the course of his employment. The respondents admitted the occurrence of the accident but denied the allegations that the accident was caused on account of the rashness or negligence of the driver of the bus. Certain other technical objections were also raised against the Claim. On the pleadings of the parties the Tribunal settled the following issues :- 1. Whether the G. M. of D. T. U. is a necessary party ? 2. Whether the Accident resulting into the death of Mr. Sikander Lal was due to rash and negligent driving of and or wrongful act of respondent No. I? 3. Whether the petitioners are legal representatives of the deceased Mr. Sikander Lal ? 4. Whether the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence ? If so, to what effect ? 5. To what amount, if any, are the petitioners entitled ? 6. Relief. 3. Whether the petitioners are legal representatives of the deceased Mr. Sikander Lal ? 4. Whether the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence ? If so, to what effect ? 5. To what amount, if any, are the petitioners entitled ? 6. Relief. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal decided issue 1 against the respondents and issue No. 3 in favour of the appellants, issue No. 2 was decided against the appellants and in view of findings on issue No. 2 the Tribunal did not consider it necessary to give a finding on issue No. 4. On issue No. 5 the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellants would be entitled by way of compensation to a sum of Rs, 20,700. 00 but inasmuch as a lumpsum payment was being ordered the net amount payable by the respondents to the appellants was to be Rs. 16,290. 00. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 22,90. 00 was to be paid to Viran Devi, the mother, and the rest to the widow and the minor children. In view, however, of the Tribunal s finding on issue No. 2 the petition for claim was dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their petition the appellants filed an appeal to this Court. The respondents did not file any cross appeal or cross objections regarding the findings against them. ( 4 ) THE short question for determination is whether the accident was caused on account of the rashness or negligence of the driver of the said bus or was that caused on account of any wrongful act of Sikander Lal or was it a mere accident for which nobody could really be blamed. ( 5 ) IT is the admitted case of the parties that the said bus was coming from Delhi side and proceeding towards Tilak Nagar on Najafgarh Road at about 9. 45 or 10. 00 p. m. on 14th December, 1964 while Sikander Lal was proceeding on a bicycle coming from Tilak Nagar side and going towards Delhi side. The accident took place near the the crossing of the road leading from Najafgarh Road to J. J. Colony. According to Gian Chand, Public witness 7. about 9. 45 p. m. or 10. 00 p. m. he was going to Tilak Nagar from Titarpur on Najafgarh Road. The D. T. U. bus driven very fast coming from Delhi side overtook him. According to Gian Chand, Public witness 7. about 9. 45 p. m. or 10. 00 p. m. he was going to Tilak Nagar from Titarpur on Najafgarh Road. The D. T. U. bus driven very fast coming from Delhi side overtook him. He had seen a cyclist coming from the opposite direction on his left-side while the bus was coming from Delhi side was being driven in the right- side lane of the road. The bus is then stated to have struck the cyclist who fell down. The bus was stopped after covering a further distance of 8 to 10 yards and the rightside wheels of the bus went in the kachha portion along the road. This witness gave the number of the bus as 713. Two or three persons reached the spot and asked the driver to put the cyclist in the bus and take him to the hospital. The injured was taken to Tilak Nagar Hospital but the cycle was left on the spot of the accident. Thereafter the witness went to inform the Police on telephone but as he could not find a telephone anywhere he went on to his own house. He came to know the name of Sikander Lal the next day. In cross-examination this witness stated that he was also riding a bicycle and was coming from Titarpur after seeing an acquaintance there. He had first noticed the bus when it was about 10ft. behind him and when the bus struck Sikander Lal it had already overtakan him and he was behind the bus. He also admitted that he had not seen Sikander Lal before the impact and first noticed him only when he heard a noise. This witness further deposed that the right-front bumper had struck Sikander Lal. He again maintained that the bus went on the kachha portion of the road and was in a pit when it stopped. According to him Sikander Lal was riding his cycle on the kachha portion of the road near the edge of the pacca road. There was no other traffic on the road at the time of the accident. He was not examined by the Police and went to the house of Sikander Lal on the third day of the accident when the dead body reached there. There was no other traffic on the road at the time of the accident. He was not examined by the Police and went to the house of Sikander Lal on the third day of the accident when the dead body reached there. It was at that time that he had informed the relatives of Sikander Lal that he had witnessed the accident. Inasmuch as Gian Chand, Public witness 7, was the only eye-witness produced by the appellant and his testimony was not found very convincing the Tribunal did not put any reliance on this evidence. I am also inclined not to give much credence to all that this witness has said. Obviously, this witness could not see the accident, even if he was present on the road on that evening, as his line of vision must have been obstructed by the bus which, according to him, was between him and Sikander Lal when the accident took place. Furthermore he admitted in cross-examination that he had not seen Sikander Lal prior to a impact. It is also noteworthy that this man on his own showing wanted to inform the Police but when he could not locate the telephone he went to his house instead of going to the Police Station. ( 6 ) THE respondents produced four witnesses including the driver. No reliance can be placed on the testimony of the driver who appeared as R. W. 4 because he for obvious reasons would not admit that he was driving on the wrong side of the road or was driving fast. Dalli Singh, R. W. 3, was the conductor of the bus and cannot bs believed either although he has supported the testimony of the driver. The only other two witnesses of the respondents were Kanwal Singh, R. W. 1 and Mool Chand, R. W. 2, who were passengers in the bus. They have both stated that the bus was on the correct side of the road and they had noticed the cyclist coming from the opposite direction on his wrong side of the road. The bus driver took the bus to his wrongside to save the cyclist but the left rear wheel portion struck the cyclist and he fell down. The bus was stopped and their names were taken down by the conductor. The bus driver took the bus to his wrongside to save the cyclist but the left rear wheel portion struck the cyclist and he fell down. The bus was stopped and their names were taken down by the conductor. Kanwal Singh had admitted in cross-examination that he and Mool Chand were talking to each other and did not know the driver but knew the conductor as the conductor and Kanwal Singh belonged to the same village. In fact they are related. Both these witnesses are illiterate and much credence cannot be given to what they saw or what they think they saw. When such witnesses are produced by the parties the real test is to find out the exact or so far as possible the exact point of impact for that would go a long way in determining who was where when the accident took place. ( 7 ) HEAD Constable Amar Singh, Public witness 10, was informed about the accident at 9. 30 or 9. 45 p. m. on that day and went to the spot with two constables. He found the cycle of Sikander Lal lying on the spot and also some blood stains. According to him the cycle was lying on the right-hand side if he faced Tilak Nagar. Its wheels were on the pacca road but its seat was on the kachha track along the road. He prepared a site plan. A certified copy of this site plan, Exhibit Public witness 10/1, was proved by him and he stated that the marginal notes on the site plan were written by him. He recorded the statements of one Harpal Singh and the bus driver and sent the same with his report for registration of a case. According to him the driver had confessed his guilt to him and he recorded the same in the Zimni. He did not show the bus in the site plan because it was not present at the site when he prepared the plan. Some-how he did not even indicate the blood spots on this plan. In cross-examination it is recorded that the place where the cycle had been lying was not shown in the site plan but this is not borne out from the site plan where it is so shown. It seems there is a typographical mistake in the recording of the statement. In cross-examination it is recorded that the place where the cycle had been lying was not shown in the site plan but this is not borne out from the site plan where it is so shown. It seems there is a typographical mistake in the recording of the statement. On looking at the site plan it is obvious that Sikander Lal was going on the correct side of the road for had he been on the wrong side his cycle could not have been found at the point marked a in Exhibit P W. 10/1 but would have been on the opposite. Had the bus been going even at a fast speed on its correct side the impact could not have taken place at the point marked a in the site plan for admittedly the road was wide enough. The contention of the respondents witnesses, therefore, that the cyclist struck the left rear wheel or the left rear portion of the bus cannot be believed for if that had happened and the cycle was found at point a , as indicated in the site plan, the bus would have been in the kachha track on the wrong side of the road qua the bus. Obviously, therefore, it is either the front right bumper of the bus, as deposed by Gian Chand, Public witness 7. or some other portion of the bus on its right side which struck Sikander Lal. This would clearly show that the bus was on its wrong side and so was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver. It is not in dispute that the road was free of all traffic and it is common knowledge that bus and truck drivers move as bull-dozers even on crowded streets and much more so when there is no traffic. I am therefore, inclined to believe the case of the appellants that the bus in question was being driven rashly and negligently or in such manner as resulted in hitting against Sikander Lal or his cycle causing him to fall down resulting in serous injuries which led to his death. This find supports the extra-judicial confession made by the driver to Head constable Amar Singh, Public witness 10, which has rightly been held to be admissible in evidence by the Tribunal. There is no reason to discard the testimony of Head Constable Amar Singh. This find supports the extra-judicial confession made by the driver to Head constable Amar Singh, Public witness 10, which has rightly been held to be admissible in evidence by the Tribunal. There is no reason to discard the testimony of Head Constable Amar Singh. The extract from the Zimni which has been brought on record speaks for itself and is of more reliable evidence than the testimony of illiterate witnesses, who after a lapse of time depose in Court about what they saw, which really is deposition of what such persons have persuaded themselves to think that they saw. I, therefore, upset the findings of the Tribunal on issue No. 2 and hold that issue in favour of the appellants. ( 8 ) INASMUCH as the issues regarding the quantum of compensation has already been decided in favour of the appellants by the Tribunal and nothing was said against that in this court nor has any thing been said about the decaesed being guilty of contributory negligence, I decide both the issues 2 and 4 against the respondents. The result is that this appeal is accepted and an order is made that the respondents do pay to the appellants a sum of Rs. 16,290. 00 in lumpsum out of which Rs. 2290. 00 would be payable to Viran Devi, appellant No. 1. The appellants would also be entitled to their costs. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 300. 00.