JUDGMENT : R.C. Mankad, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux). Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol awarding compensation to various claimants in claim applications arising out of the collision which took place between the bus of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation ('Corporation' for short) and the truck owned and driven by second appellant which was insured with the first appellant in each of these appeals. 2. The accident out of which these appeals arise, took place at about 8.30 am. on June 8, 1981 on the high way leading from Ahmedabad to Dhandhukan. The truck was going towards Ahmedabad while the S.T. Bus (but for short) was going in the opposite direction on the high way when collision occurred. The Tribunal has found that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck. It is this finding which is sought to be challenged by the appellant in these appeals. 3. It is contended that the accident occurred solely on account of the negligence of the driver of the bus. In the alternative, it is submitted that in any case, the Tribunal was wrong in throwing the entire responsibility for the accident on the driver of the truck. It is submitted that but for the contributory negligence of the driver of the bus. The accident could have been avoided. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has given undue weight to the admission made by the driver of the truck in his deposition that it was on account of his negligence that accident occurred. The submission is that if the positions of the bus and truck soon after the accident and the damage to the two vehicles were critically examined, in the light the evidence on record, the conclusion that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck could not have been reached. It is, therefore, prayed that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck. 4. The version of the driver of the truck given in his written statement and his deposition is that the collision took place when driver of the bus attempted to overtake another bus which was going ahead of him. It is stated that the driver of the truck was driving his truck on the correct side of the road and the driver of the bus while overtaking another bus collided against the truck. On the other hand the version given by the Corporation and the driver of the bus is that the truck came on the wrong side of the road and therefore, to avoid the collision the driver of the bus took the bus to wrong side. However, collision could not be avoided. The question is which of the two versions is correct. 5. Now, if we examine the panchnama which was drawn up soon after the accident, it appears that both the vehicles were found on the wrong side of the road. It is not necessary to state distance at which they were found lying from the road their correct side or the wrong side. But the fact remains that both the vehicles were on the wrong side of the road. It further appears that there was extensive damage to both the vehicles on the left side. If the version given by the driver of the truck is correct, the positions of the vehicles and the damage to the vehicles would not be as stated in the panchnama. If this version is correct damage to both vehicles would be on the right side or the driver's side. In our opinion, position of the two vehicles as found after the accident and damage to the vehicles clearly supports the version given by the driver of the bus. We are satisfied that the accident occurred when the truck was going on the wrong side of the road and the driver of the bus was compelled to take the bus on the wrong side to avoid collision. We are satisfied that the accident occurred when the truck was going on the wrong side of the road and the driver of the bus was compelled to take the bus on the wrong side to avoid collision. This conclusion is further strengthened by the admission made by the driver of the truck in his examination in chief when his deposition was recorded before the Tribunal that accident occurred on account of his own negligence. This admission, in our opinion was not slip of tongue as sought to be urged on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, having regard to all the facts end circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in reaching the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck. In other words, the driver of the truck was solely responsible for the accident. 6. No other point is urged on behalf of the appellant. Since in our view, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is correct, all these appeals deserve to be dismissed. 7. We accordingly dismiss these appeals. Appeals Dismissed.