N. N. MITHAL, J. ( 1 ) A claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 having been dismissed, the claimants have filed this appeal. ( 2 ) THE facts which are either admitted or which are not seriously disputed may be stated first with a view to have an exposure of the facts necessary for explaining the setting of the contentions between the parties. ( 3 ) HUKUM Chand, the deceased victim of the accident, was 34 years of age and was a teacher in the Harcourt Higher Secondary School, New Delhi, drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 578/- at the relevant time. The claimants are his widow, two minor sons and a minor daughter, it is now undisputed that Hukum Chand died in a motor accident while he, along with his family, was waiting for a bus in front of Gurukul Sarvodaya Inter College, Panchli Khurd on meerut-Baghpat Road, about 15 km. west of Meerut. The fact that Vishnu Dutt was the husband of the sister of victims wife is not under challenge and he was Principal of the Sarvodaya college aforesaid at that time. ( 4 ) THE two questions that emerge from the respective cases of the parties and await decision by the court are: (i) the time of the accident; and (ii) the vehicle which caused the accident. While the claimants asserted that vehicle No. USL 6270 belonging to the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 was the offending vehicle, their defence was that the accident had not taken place at the time alleged nor their vehicle was involved in the accident. ( 5 ) AS many as 8 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the claimants out of whom 3 witnesses are eye-witnesses. Of the 5 witnesses examined on behalf of the defence, only DW 5 budh Prakash, who is the driver of the vehicle, is the eye-witness. Apart from this oral evidence, a number of documents have been filed by the claimants as also by the owner of the vehicle in support of their respective cases. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the case as set out in the claim petition, the accident took place at about 6. 00 p. m. when PW 4 along with his family had come to see off the victim and his family as he was proceeding by road to Meerut. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the case as set out in the claim petition, the accident took place at about 6. 00 p. m. when PW 4 along with his family had come to see off the victim and his family as he was proceeding by road to Meerut. While they were waiting for the bus to come, it is alleged that bus no. USL 6270 came from Baghpat side, i. e. , from the west and hit the victim and then proceeded to the east for Meerut. It may be mentioned here that the highway near the site of the accident is east-west. Meerut is to the east and Baghpat is towards west of that spot. The place of the accident is on the south of the road, i. e. , towards the right of a vehicle coming from Baghpat and going to Meerut. Obviously, if the accident has taken place on the southern brick pavement by the side of the pucca portion of the road it was clearly on the wrong side of the bus coming from baghpat side. ( 7 ) THE evidence of PW 3, PW 4 and PW 6 is th at they were waiting for the bus by the side of the southern patri of the road and they waved their hands for the bus to stop. It is alleged that the bus coming from Baghpat side was being driven very rashly and when it turned towards the southern patri of the road, i. e. , to the right hand side of the road, it hit Hukum Chand, the victim, and after crushing him the bus slowed down a bit after a distance and then again speeded up and then ran away. It is alleged that this accident took place at about 6 p. m. ( 8 ) THE case of the claimants is, however, very strongly refuted by the owner of the vehicle and it is alleged that the time of the accident mentioned in the claim petition is concocted and has been deliberately mentioned as 6 p. m. although the earlier stand of the claimants was that the accident had taken place at about 5 p. m. It, therefore, becomes necessary to examine this aspect of the matter as undisputedly the burden is on the claimant to establish that the accident had taken place at a particular time and involving a particular motor vehicle causing death or bodily injury to a person. The copy of the F. I. R. , Exh. 8, shows that the report was lodged at 8. 10 p. m. on the same date, i. e. , 15. 4. 1973. The time of the accident is mentioned as 5. 00 p. m. The name of the person giving the information is Jaswant Singh, Sarpanch of village Panchli Khurd. In the column giving the name of the accused, private bus No. USL 6270 is mentioned stating that the drivers name is not known and then in the next column it is mentioned that the death of the person has been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. In the narration of facts it is mentioned that the information was received on telephone from telephone No. 3122 and the time of the accident is mentioned as 5 p. m. , the number of the bus is mentioned as USL 6270. The investigation was entrusted to R. K. Chabba who issued a notice under Section 88 of the Motor vehicles Act to Ved Prakash, the owner of the bus, stating that his bus had caused accident at 5 p. m. which has caused the death of a person and to indicate the name of the driver who was driving the bus at the relevant time. There is a note on the notice made by the son of Ved prakash intimating that Budh Prakash was the driver of the bus on the relevant date. Exh. 2 is the copy of the CD. There is a note on the notice made by the son of Ved prakash intimating that Budh Prakash was the driver of the bus on the relevant date. Exh. 2 is the copy of the CD. and it also mentions that on a telephonic information received from Jaswant singh Sarpanch, about the death of a person caused by motor vehicle No. USL 6270 at about 5 p. m. the case was registered. ( 9 ) FROM the above evidence, therefore, it will be obvious that upto the time when the report was lodged the time of the accident was consistently mentioned as 5 p. m. though simultaneously the number of the bus was also mentioned as USL 6270. When the claim petition was filed, however, the time of the accident was changed as 6 p. m. This petition was filed on 22. 9. 1973, i. e. , after about 5 months of the accident. Obviously during this period the claimants must have made enquiries about the timing of the bus whose number had been mentioned in the F. I. R. and when they came to know that this particular bus could not have been anywhere near the place of the accident at that time, the time of the accident appears to have been changed to 6 p. m. ( 10 ) IT is true that all the three eye-witnesses have stated that the accident had taken place near about 6 p. m. but strangely we find that Jaswant Singh Sarpanch has supported the version mentioned in paper No. 39-C. There is a Chik Report which was recorded on the basis of telephonic message given by this witness. In this Chik Report the time of the accident is mentioned as 5 p. m. although in his statement he tried to improve upon his version of the accident by stating that the accident had taken place between 5 and 6 p. m. In the light of this documentary evidence, therefore, the number of the bus which caused the accident becomes of some significance. According to PW 3, the victims widow, she came to know about the bus number at the spot from others but she fairly conceded that she had no personal knowledge. She was unable to state as to who had informed her about the bus number. According to PW 3, the victims widow, she came to know about the bus number at the spot from others but she fairly conceded that she had no personal knowledge. She was unable to state as to who had informed her about the bus number. The only thing she states is that one person was getting this number noted by another and that is how she had overheard the number. Obviously her statement is based almost on hearsay and she had no personal knowledge about it. It is also not possible to believe that she would have remembered this number only after hearing it once. ( 11 ) THE second witness who stated about the number of the bus is PW 4, Vishnu Dutt. Admittedly, the widow of the victim and his wife are real sisters and thus they are closely related. He also makes a very elastic statement that the accident took place at about 5 to 6 p. m. He, however, stated that after the accident the bus had paused a little but as soon as the crowd collected around it the driver sped away. He conceded that after the accident his attention was directed towards the victim and thereafter they thought of the bus and at that time he and his wife both noted the number of the bus. Jaswant Singh who is the member of the college executive also had read the bus number. His presence at the spot appears to be very doubtful. According to him he had gone to the Principal in connection with some college work. Admittedly, he is a member of the Managing Committee of the college in which PW4 is the Principal. When pressed he was unable to tell as to what was the work for which he had to go to Principals residence. On the question of noting down the number of the bus, he states that they had rushed after the bus soon after the accident but he had not noted the number of the bus and he only memorised it. He remained at the spot only for 5 to 7 minutes. From the spot he went to the factory from where he made the telephone call. He emphatically stated that the report which was read over to him was perfectly right and whatever he had dictated was written down in the report. He remained at the spot only for 5 to 7 minutes. From the spot he went to the factory from where he made the telephone call. He emphatically stated that the report which was read over to him was perfectly right and whatever he had dictated was written down in the report. When this oral evidence is considered in the background of the documentary evidence it becomes quite obvious that immediately after the accident the time of the accident was given as 5 p. m. and subsequently attempt was made to shift it to 6 p. m. Since the correct number of the bus was consistently mentioned in all the papers, it becomes necessary to examine whether there was any possibility of this bus being near about the place of the accident at that hour of the day. ( 12 ) THE defendant has placed documentary evidence on the record and it is not disputed that the motor operators of Meerut-Baghpat have formed a Union in which all the buses plying on that route are registered. In order to facilitate the running of the vehicles in a proper manner, a time schedule has been fixed by the Union and the buses leave the starting point both from Meerut side and on their return journey from Baghpat side according to the time table. This fact is established by the production of the movement register of the buses leaving the bus station at meerut for Baghpat and DW 2 and DW 3 have been examined in this regard. The statement of dw 3 shows that on 15. 4. 1973 bus No. USL 6270 had left Meerut at 8. 15 in the morning and its scheduled departure time from Baraut was 4 p. m. It has also come in his evidence that the journey from Meerut to Baraut usually takes two hours and fifty minutes. In the normal course, therefore, the bus that would start from Baraut at 4 p. m. should ordinarily reach Meerut at 6. 50 p. m. It has also come in evidence that it takes about 15 minutes for a bus for reaching Meerut from Panchli where the accident had taken place. Under the circumstances the bus in question on its return journey that day could have been near about Panchli at 6. 25 p. m. or so. 50 p. m. It has also come in evidence that it takes about 15 minutes for a bus for reaching Meerut from Panchli where the accident had taken place. Under the circumstances the bus in question on its return journey that day could have been near about Panchli at 6. 25 p. m. or so. This rules out the possibility of this bus being at Panchli at 5 p. m. DW 5 Budh Prakash is the driver of the bus and he has made a very categorical statement that he had taken the bus from Meerut in the morning at about 8. 15 a. m. and the same day he left Baraut at 4 p. m. on his return journey. From baraut the bus takes about two hours fifty-five minutes in reaching Meerut. On that particular day he passed through Panchli at 6. 30 p. m. According to him the bus stopped at bus station and the passengers were set down and thereafter the vehicle left for the bus station at Meerut. Only the next day he came to know that the bus has been taken away by the police. No suggestion was given to this witness while he was in the witness-box that the bus had reached Panchli between 5 p. m. to 6 p. m. In viewofthe categorical statement made by this witness and also in the light of the documentary evidence filed on behalf of both the sides, it is very difficult to believe that this bus was involved in the accident in question. We have been taken through the evidence on the record and also the award of the Tribunal but we do not find anything on the basis of which any ground for interference could be made out. Agreeing with the findings of the Tribunal, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs in this appeal and the parties are left to fend their own costs. .