JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—This appeal is directed against the award passed by Motor Accident Claims tribunal (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, By means of impugned award, compensation in the sum of Rs 1,52,352 has been awarded in favour of respondents No. 1 to 5 besides interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of award i.e. December 14, 987 till the date of payment, 2. Brief facts giving rise to this case are that Bus No. HPK1189 was on its way from Dharamshala to Bilaspur via Nagrota Sudan, bus met with an accident and it rolled down 28 feet into the Khad wherein its conductor, Hans Raj died instantaneously and Gurcharan Singh, its driver, received injuries According to the claimants since the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the bus owned by Himachal Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as H.R.T.C , resulting in the death of said Hans Raj, as such compensation to the tune of Rs, 2,50,000 was claimed from the Appellant-Corporation, hereinafter referred to as H.R.T.C. as well as Gurcharan singh hereinafter referred to as driver. In the claim petition filed by the claimants before the Tribunal below, H.R.T.C. as well as driver had been arrayed as respondents, who admitted the factum of the accident as also Hans Raj being the conductor of the bus on the fateful day i.e. 9-1-1987, when the same was on its route from Dharamshala to Bilaspur. But, it was specifically denied by both these parties that Gurcharan Singh was driving the vehicle in question at the of accident On the other hand, it was pleaded that there was no passenger in the bus and the same had been stopped by the driver at Nagrota Surian at about 7-00 p.m. on 91-1987, then he went to a nearby Dhaba for his meals, Before going to the Dhaba, according to the driver, he had placed the ignition key of the vehicle in the locked box meant for it, Deceased Hams Raj was stated to have come under the influence of liquor having, taken out the ignition key from the box and started the bus towards Lanj side. Seeing this driver of the bus immediately got into the bus from entrance window and asked Hans Raj to stop the same later did not pay any heed and in the meantime the bus rolled down the Khad resulting in the death of Hans Raj and causing injuries to the driver. In these circumstances it was pleaded that accident being the result of the acts of the conductor Hans Raj therefore, the claimants are not entitled for payment of any compensation and in these circumstances dismissal of petition was prayed. It was also the case of H.R.T.C. as well as driver that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation as claim made in that behalf was exorbitant 3. On the aforesaid pleadings parties went to trial on the following issues :— 1. Whether Sin Hans Raj deceased received injuries in the motor vehicle accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of Sh. Gurcharan Singh respondent No.1 on 9-1-1987, as alleged ? OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 supra is proved whether the petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased Hans Raj and are entitled to the compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged ? OPR. 4. Relief. Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of claimants nod under Issues No. 2 and 4 compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,52/352 with 12% interest from the date of award was granted in favour of the claimants and against the H.R.T.C.-appellant. Issue No. 3 was decided against the H.R.T.C. and driver respondents It is in this background that the present appeal has been filed by the H.R.T.C. wherein has prayed for setting aside the impugned award of the Tribunal below. 4. Shri Deepak Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for H.R.T.C. forcefully urged that in this case the impugned award cannot be sustained in any circumstances whatsoever as according to him, there is enough material on the file to suggest that it was Hans Raj-conductor and none else who was driving the bus in question, that too, in an unauthorised manner after the driver had gone to Dhaba for taking meals and before starting the vehicle the deceased had taken the ignition key of the same from the box which was meant for keeping the same. Thus, according to Shri Gupta, accident being the result of the acts of the deceased, claimants are not entitled to any compensation whatsoever In support of his this submission, Shri Deepak Gupta, Advocate, referred to both, oral as well as documentary evidence which had been examined on record. 5. On the other hand, Mrs. Parmar learned Counsel appearing for the claimants, while controverting all the pleas raised in support of this appeal by Shri Gupta, has submitted that arguments advanced in support of this appeal when tested on the touch stone of the evidence produced by the parties, clearly belied the stand of the H.R.T.C. as well as that of the driver. According to Mrs. Parmar, minor son of the driver was also there in the bus at the time when the accident took place, as according to her, the said minor son was with the driver at Dhaba where both of them had gone for meals. In case the stand of H.T.R.C. is accepted, then there is no explanation as to how the minor son got into the bus. 6. After considering the evidence on record this Court is satisfied that there is no merit in the same and the plea raised by both i.e. H.R.T.C. as well as driver that the bus at the time of accident was being driven by Hans Raj conductor appears to be not based on correct facts. So far H.R.T. C. is concerned, it has its own limitations as it had to plead what is informed to it by its staff i.e. driver in the present case. So far driver is concerned, he appears to have raised the plea of the conductor deceased- Hans Raj driving the bus with a view to save himself of criminal liability as well as of departmental action, in case his employer decided to take the same. 7. It is no bodys case that driver had lifted his minor son after seeing the bus having been started and moved towards Lanj while driver was taking his meals in the Dhaba. In no case the child would be found in the bus unless he was already there in the stationary bus. It has further come in evidence that there was no passenger in the bus except driver, conductor and the minor child of the driver. 8. In no case the child would be found in the bus unless he was already there in the stationary bus. It has further come in evidence that there was no passenger in the bus except driver, conductor and the minor child of the driver. 8. To be fair to Shri Gupta, it may be appropriate to mention that in support of his submissions, he urged that since the body of the deceased-conductor was found on the drivers seal and his legs ware found entangled on the accelerator/brakes of the bus, as such interference needs to be drawn that he alone and none else was driving the bus in question. This plea in the face of the evidence does not hold good. This Court is farther of the view that Gurcharan Singh-driver seeing that conductor had since died and there was no passenger in the bus, appears to have given incorrect information to H.R.T.C. regarding the deceased having driven the bus in question. From the police file which is there on the record of the Tribunal below, photographs as well as the spot map prepared during the course of investigation, extracted body of deceased was lying outside the bus. Spot map also shows that the same was lying outside the bus. That being so, in order to save his skin, the possibility of the driver having given incorrect version of the accident in question that the bus being driven by the deceased with a view to escape the liability of criminal as well as departmental action cannot be completely ruled out. Again, at the risk of repetition, it may be appropriate to mention that in the statement Ex. RW-1, driver has not said a word as to how his minor child had got into the bus. That being so, there is no infirmity with the award of the Tribunal below. In addition to this the doctrine of res ipsa-loquitur has been rightly applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case by the Tribunal below on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly with cost which is quantified at Rs, 1,000. Appeal dismissed.