JUDGMENT K. K. Birla, J. - This appeal has been preferred by the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and Sri Sultan Ahmad against the award dated 6-2-1979 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal awarding a compensation of Rs. 10,000 against the opposite parties including the appellants. 2. Sri Gyanendra Singh was aged about 19 years and was studying in Intermediate II Year. He was living with his sisters husband Sri Babu Singh (PW 2) at village Bhadha district Fatehpur. He used to go to Fatehpur to appear in final examination at the relevant time. On 26-4-1978 at about 10.00 a. m. he was going on a cycle on the G. T. Road near village Bakandha. His brother-in-law Sri Babu Singh w as following him on another cycle at that time. State Government Transport Bus No. UTB-264 was going from Fatehpur to Kanpur side. These persons were coming on cycles from opposite side. There was an accident in which Sri Gyanendra Singh received severe injuries. He was taken to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. The Bus was being driven by Sultan Ahmad appellant No. 2. A claim of Rs. 2 lacs was preferred before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal by the father, mother, brother and sister of the deceased. In brief according to them the Bus was driven by the driver rashly and negligently. It hit the cycle of Gyanendra Singh causing him multiple injuries, resulting in his death. On the other hand the case of the opposite parties was that an octroi post was in Nauwabag where the trucks stopped to pay octroi taxes. Therefore the bus was being driven at a slow speed. An ekka was coming from the opposite direction of the bus. Gyanendra Singh was behind the Ekka. All of a sudden he tried to overtake the Ekka by his right side and lost control of his cycle. He dashed against the right side of the bus and fall down. There was no rashness and negligence on the part of the bus driver. The quantum of compensation was also challenged. Gyanendra Singh was behind the Ekka. All of a sudden he tried to overtake the Ekka by his right side and lost control of his cycle. He dashed against the right side of the bus and fall down. There was no rashness and negligence on the part of the bus driver. The quantum of compensation was also challenged. On the parties pleadings the following issues were framed by the Tribunals : (1) Whether the accident dated 26-4-1978 which was caused by the Bus No. UTB 264 and resulted in fatal injuries to Gyanendra Singh happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus, namely Sultan Ahmad as alleged ? If suits effect. (2) To what amount of compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled ? (3) Whether the accident happened due to the negligence of Gyanendra Singh as alleged in para 27 of the W. S. ? If so, its effect? 3. The claimant examined Sri Buddha Chaukidar of village Bakandha as PW 1 and Sri Babu Singh as PW 2 about the accident. They gave out the claimants version given above. They denied that there was any Ekka on the spot at the time of the accident. As against this Sultan Ahmed driver and Laxmi Shanker Conductor of the bus were examined by the opposite parties regarding the accident who stated in support of the opposite parties version already given above. Certain documents were also filed by the parties. Babu Singh had lodged the F. I. R. At the police station at 11.00 a.m. on the same day and its carbon copy has been filed. Another report was lodged by Sultan Ahmed at the police station. The copy of the written report is Ex. A-l. 4. After considering the material on record the Tribunal found the negligence of the driver on the point of quantum of compensation. He found the compensation of Rs. 10,000 to be proper and accordingly passed the award. 5. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant none had appeared on behalf of the respondents. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal had wrongly disbelieved the evidence led by the appellants and the accident was not the result of the rashness or negligence of the driver. We have considered the contention raised on behalf of the appellants and perused the record. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal had wrongly disbelieved the evidence led by the appellants and the accident was not the result of the rashness or negligence of the driver. We have considered the contention raised on behalf of the appellants and perused the record. We do not find any error or illegality in the findings of the Tribunal. 6. Admittedly the deceased received injuries on account of the accident. The presence of Sri Babu Singh (PW 2) at the time of the accident has not been disputed. Sri Buddha (PW 1) is a Chaukidar of village Bakandha. Admittedly the accident had taken place at the place near that village. Therefore he is a natural and probable witness of the accident. Not only this he has been named as a witness in the F. I. R. lodged by Babu Singh just after the accident. This also shows that he was present at the time of the accident. He is also an independent witness. There appears no reason why he would have come to support the claimants falsely. As against this Sultan Ahmed (DW 1) is the driver who is directly involved in the happening of the accident and is also a person and appellant from whom the compensation was claimed. Sri Laxmi Shanker is the Conductor of the bus and, therefore, a highly interested witness. According to the appellants case Kishori Lal and others, being passengers in the Bus, were also present at the time of the accident. In fact it is contended on behalf of the appellants that they have moved an application in support of the appellants version. Clearly enough that application is inadmissible evidence but it is obvious that the opposite parties could have examined independent witness of the accident which they fail to do this loads to an adverse inference against them. For the above discussions made above we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly found that the accident w as the result of rash and negligent driving by Sri Sultan Ahmed Driver. 7. As regards the quantum of the amount of compensation nothing has been shown that it is excessive. The deceased was a young man of 19 years. By no stretch of imagination this amount can be said to be excessive, fore, there is no force in the appeal. 8. 7. As regards the quantum of the amount of compensation nothing has been shown that it is excessive. The deceased was a young man of 19 years. By no stretch of imagination this amount can be said to be excessive, fore, there is no force in the appeal. 8. The appeals is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.