JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred by Smt. Reshma Begum, widow of the deceased Mohammad Hanif and by his four minor children. 2. The accident occurred at about 6.15 P.M. on 15-7-1976 near octroi post Rampur Road, Bareilly when Mohammad Hanif was returning by Motor Cycle U.P.M. 9948 from the factory M/s Camphor and Allied Products Clutterbuckganj, Bareilly. Near the octroi post, the bus belonging to the U P. State Road Transport Corporation was coming from the opposite direction. It was being driven by Zahid Ali. The appellants claimed that as the bus was being rashly and negligently driven, it collided with the motor cycle of Mohammad Hanif as a result of which Mohammad Hanif died instantaneously at the spot. The appellants alleged that on account of the death of Mohammad Hanif they were entitled to get compensation. 3. The petition was contested by the U.P. State Road Transport corporation on the ground inter alias that the accident was caused not due to the negligence of the bus driver but because of the sole rashness and negligence of Mohammad Hanif. It was pleaded that Mohammad Hanif was coming from his factory at the excessively high speed and when he tried to overtake the truck which was coming by the side of the bus, he collided by the left side of the roadways bus. On the pleadings of the parties, the following two issues were framed. (1) Whether the accident was caused due to the negligent and rash driving of the bus or due to the own negligence of Mohd. Hanif who was riding on the motor cycle ? (2) To what amount of compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled ? 4. For proving that the accident resulted due to the negligence of the Roadways, the appellants, produced three witnesses. These witnesses were PW 1 R.S. Reddy, an officer in the Camphor and Allied Products and two other pedestrints, namely, PW 2 Abdul Majid and PW 3 Abdul Rehman. 5. On behalf of the respondents, Zahid Ali, the driver of the bus, was produced as DW 1. DW 1 Zahid Ali narrated the manner in which the accident occurred. These witnesses were PW 1 R.S. Reddy, an officer in the Camphor and Allied Products and two other pedestrints, namely, PW 2 Abdul Majid and PW 3 Abdul Rehman. 5. On behalf of the respondents, Zahid Ali, the driver of the bus, was produced as DW 1. DW 1 Zahid Ali narrated the manner in which the accident occurred. He stated that he was running the bus on its correct side and at a moderate speed when the Mohammad Hanif, the deceased, appeared on the scene on his motor cycle. He had no control on the same as a result of which despite all efforts made by the driver to the bus, the accident could not be saved. The deceased, according to him, collided with the left side of the bus. He has been supported by the cleanser, Khalil-ul-rebman. 6. We have gone through the judgment and heard learned Counsel for the parties. We are of opinion that on the evidence produced by the appellants it was not possible to hold that the accident resulted due to the; negligence of the bus driver. The fact of the motor cycle colliding with the left side of the bus establishes that the accident occurred due to the negligence of Mohammad Hanif. Had he been right there was no occasions of the bus colliding with the motor cycle on the left side of the bus. It shows that the deceased had no control over the vehicle and that he* collided with the bus on its right side. 7. Coming to the statement of the witnesses produced by the appellants' side, the Motor Claims Tribunal found a material contradiction. In his anxiety to establish the negligence of the Roadways, he stated that the motor cycle collided with the right side (front of the bus) but when* he was shown the photographs taken for the purpose of criminal case in which the accident was shown to have taken place on the left side of the bus, he tried to wriggle out. 8. The theory on the appellants' side taken in the court below was that the accident took place because the bus driver attempted to overtake the rickshaw and in doing so collided with the motor cycle. This has not been established. 8. The theory on the appellants' side taken in the court below was that the accident took place because the bus driver attempted to overtake the rickshaw and in doing so collided with the motor cycle. This has not been established. In the first information report lodged immediately after the occurrence, the fact of overtaking by the bus driver of the rickshaw had not been mentioned. This was rightly, in our opinion, considered to be a circumstance against the case of the appellants, witnesses of the appellants could not make out the case. Consequently, we find in agreement with the court below that the accident resulted due to the rash driving of Mohammad Hanif. 9. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.