Santosh Duggal ( 1 ) [appellant minor filed a claim before MAC Tribunal alleging that his father died as a result of accident by Bus belonging to Respondent. The driver of the Bus was not impleaded. Nor there was any allegation and proof of rash and negligent driving. MACT dismissed the petition and claimant appealed to High Court] It was held : ( 2 ) I have heard the counsel for the appellant today, Mr. Monga and have also been taken through the relevant facts by Mrs. Avnash Ahlawat, appearing for the resondent and I find that there is no error or infirmity in judgment recorded by the MAC Tribunal. It has been rightly observed that the basic ingredients, namely, the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the concerned bus has not been even alleged in the claim petition and to that extent it lacked in requisite particulars and did not disclose any cause of action for award of compensation. ( 3 ) I further find on a perusal of the record that there has been no error in the appraisal or analysis of the of evidence. Only two persons were examined as witnessess to the accident, namely, R. Mogam (PW1) and one Sundram (PW2 ). ( 4 ) SO far as PW1 is concerned, he is for all purposes an interested person because the claim petition was filed by him as next friend of the minor son of the deceased. The testimony of both these witnesses that they had witnessed the accident does not inspire confidence for the reason that on their own showing that they were more than 100 feet behind deceased when the accident took place. Both of them stated that they were proceeding towards their respective houses on foot, whereas the deceased had gone ahead an bicycle. It is not possible to believe that in the ordinary course of human conduct, a person walking more than 100 feet behind would have noticed in what manner the person going ahead on bicycle would have met with an accident. They also do not state as to on which side the cyclist was proceeding and whether the bus had come on wrong side and had not blown any horn, nor had given any other particulars of the rash or negligent driving on the part of the driver. They also do not state as to on which side the cyclist was proceeding and whether the bus had come on wrong side and had not blown any horn, nor had given any other particulars of the rash or negligent driving on the part of the driver. According to PW1, who is close relation of the deceased, the injured remained lying on the road for 1-1/2 hours after the accident and was then removed to hospital in the some bus. This situation seems to be very improbable for two reasons. Firstly, in case this witness was at the spot, he would not have let the injured remain lying on the spot for such a long time and would have taken steps with the help of others, to take him to some nearby hospital or doctor and secondly, it is not explained as to how the offending bus would have remained on the spot for so long after causing the alleged accident when there is no indication that the police had come at the spot or had stopped the bus or had started proceeding at the spot. ( 5 ) THE 1. 0. of the case SI Pyara Singh has been examined as Public Witness and he has clearly deposed that he received information at a latter point of time and for the first time saw the dead body in the bus near Mori Gate and thereafter he carried out proceeding of recording of FIR, preparation of the site plan and statement of witnesses. He has named four persons who gave statement as eye witnesses of the accident but curiously enough neither PW1 nor PW2 are amongst those four persons. In case these two persons, as they now deposed, were in the bus with the dead body, when the investigating officer reached there, in normal course they would have given their statement to the 1. 0. about their eye witness account. This leads to the inescapable inference that they were not present when the 1. 0. reached the place where the bus was parked with the dead body nor had met the investigating officer at any time when he was recording statements of the eye witnesses, and that they had been inducted subsequently and put up as eye witnesses being close relation or friend of the deceased. ( 6 ) MR. 0. reached the place where the bus was parked with the dead body nor had met the investigating officer at any time when he was recording statements of the eye witnesses, and that they had been inducted subsequently and put up as eye witnesses being close relation or friend of the deceased. ( 6 ) MR. Monga then tried to argue on the theory of res ipsa loquitur but unfortunately the site plan could have been the only indication of such state of affairs but in this case the copy of the site plan, which is on record as proved by the 1. 0. does not lend much assistance. This is obviously for reasons that the 1. 0. reached the spot of accident at a very late stage and the scene of occurrence would have been disturbed by that time. Consequently, the site plan does not represent the position as at the time of accident or soon thereafter, and thus does not reflect any situation, amounting to res ipsa loquitur from which the Court could draw some inference about rash or negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus, or any other fault on his part.