JUDGMENT The maxim res-ipsa-Loquitur applies in actions for negligence where the circumstances of an accident are such that it is so improbable that it would have occurred without the negligence of the defendant. The evidence on the point has, been considered by the Tribunal in paras 8, 9 and 10 of the award. Appellant's allegation that the Bus was being driven at the speed of 60-70 k.ms. per hour, no doubt has not found favour with the Tribunal, stands belied by the fact that it immediately stopped just within 8-10 paces. Shri Dhupar urged that appellant's case that he was dashed from behind, he got entangled and dragged, has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal and it cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in such a situation he would fall in front or either side of the Bus. But the handle of the bicycle would get entangled with the Bus as claimed and pleaded by the appellant. It was contended that such entanglement of the handle of the bicycle and resultant dragging in case of dash from backside was almost inconceivable. He argued that appellant's claim that he sustained injuries as a result of being dragged for about X paces, has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal on proper consideration of the evidence. Prabhusingh the bus driver has in his evidence admitted that road widening work was going on and road material was lying by its side. He has also admitted that it was only when Mangilal a passenger in the Bus cried that a boy had been dashed, that he came to know of it. The driver has also stated that he had seen the appellant going on his bicycle on' Kachchi patari' (untarred side) of the road. According to him he was driving the Bus at a speed of 20 k.ms. per hour. It is his version that the boy swerved to the right as a result of which he dashed. He has also deposed that a truck was also going ahead of him, and a motercycle coming from the opposite direction. Admittedly the Bus was overcrowded. Many passengers were standing in the Bus just besides its entrance. In his examination-in-chief this witness Prabhusingh has sated that as the boy (the appellant) came near a heap of boulders or Gitti lying by the road side, he swerved and lost balance. Admittedly the Bus was overcrowded. Many passengers were standing in the Bus just besides its entrance. In his examination-in-chief this witness Prabhusingh has sated that as the boy (the appellant) came near a heap of boulders or Gitti lying by the road side, he swerved and lost balance. The road at the site of accident was quite sloppy and the boy was cycling not sitting on the seat but by pushing the paddles putting his legs across the bar. In such situation mere slowness of speed is not the sole criterion or decisive factor in determination of negligence. The very fad that a passenger was required to shout that a boy had been dashed, so as to attract drivers attention before the Bus was actually brought to a halt, is indicative of his attentiveness. The reason is apparent. His side view was blocked as a result of over crowding in the Bus. Even the conductor could not notice the dash. Having seen the boy going on a bicycle on Kachchi Patri of the road with boulders lying on the side the boy actually coming close to it, the road widening work going on and the road being sloppy at the site of accident it was the duty of the Bus driver to take sufficient care to see that the cyclist was allowed to pass through safely, and should have brought and controlled to the Bus speed to that aim, if not actually halted the same in safe position. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The learned Member of Tribunal has failed to consider the medical evidence on the point of appellants negligence. He had two injuries one on the right femur and the other on the head. Dr. Tomar A.W. 5 in his cross examination has very clearly stated that both these injuries could not be caused, as a result of slipping from a heap of 'Gitti' or boulders. Either of them could. But both the injuries could be caused as a result of dash by a Bus, he has further added that in that case there would be few more injuries. In this connection Ex. P. 22 the report submitted by A.W. 4 H.C. Ramsahay may be seen. The boy had other injuries on his eye-brow and left elbow. Without considering this. But both the injuries could be caused as a result of dash by a Bus, he has further added that in that case there would be few more injuries. In this connection Ex. P. 22 the report submitted by A.W. 4 H.C. Ramsahay may be seen. The boy had other injuries on his eye-brow and left elbow. Without considering this. medical evidence at all the learned Member comes to the conclusion that the cyclist was negligent. Appeal allowed.