JUDGMENT - T.K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J.:---The matter arises under Motor Vehicles Act. The first respondent's wife Yesabai Sahadeo Pore met with an accident on 28-2-1986 at about 8.30 a.m. when she was waiting for a bus at Painjarwadi bus stand. It is alleged that at that time one S.T. bus No. MTQ-6538 belonging to the appellant driven by one James John Desoza, who was the first opponent in the trial Court, came at the spot with a great speed in Kolhapur Ratnagiri road, which had given a dash to the deceased Yesabai. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and she was removed to the C.P.R. Hospital, Kolhapur. On 13-3-1986 she succumbed to her injuries. In the trial Court the opponent No. 1 driver, did not file any written statement and the matter was proceeded ex-parte. The opponent Nos. 2 and 3 the bus owner and insurer, filed written statement. According to the defence taken by opponents, the deceased sustained fatal injuries due to the dash given by one unknown Ambassador car, which passed the road at the material point of time, and the aforesaid bus did not hit her at all. Among other issues, the trial Court has framed the following issue. 1) Do the applicants prove that the deceased Yesabai Sahadev @ Sadu Pore died in the motor accident due to negligent driving of the vehicle S.T. bus No. MTQ 6538 on Kolhapur-Ratnagiri Road, near Painjarwadi village, on 28-2-1986, as alleged? The aforesaid issue was decided by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff and therefore awarded compensation of Rs. 55,000/-. The lower Court did not believe the story set up by the opponents. 2. The defence set up by the driver, who was examined by the trial Court has been considered by the trial Court and rejected. The trial Court has solely depended upon the version of an independent eye-witness, Pandurang, who also claimed to be present at the time of accident and who has seen the incident. He categorically stated before the Court that the deceased Yesabai and her son witness Dattatraya were present on the S.T. stand on that day. He says that S.T. bus had given dash to Yesabai and she sustained injuries. The lower Court has found no circumstances to disbelieve this version. He categorically stated before the Court that the deceased Yesabai and her son witness Dattatraya were present on the S.T. stand on that day. He says that S.T. bus had given dash to Yesabai and she sustained injuries. The lower Court has found no circumstances to disbelieve this version. The lower Court has also relied upon driver's admission that the deceased Yesabai was found lying under the S.T. bus near diesel tank. His case before the Court is that the bus was already become stationery and already stopped, when the Ambassador car hit the deceased. The lower Court has seen the contradiction in the version of the driver that if the bus was already in stationery when the Ambassador car hit the deceased then, how did it happen that the deceased Yesabai's body was under the bus. This is an inconsistency in the evidence of driver and also evidence of the independent witness as aforesaid. The lower Court has come to the conclusion that the accident has occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the S.T. bus. 3. The learned Counsel Shri Hegde strenuously argued to upset the finding of the trial Court. But he was not successful in pointing out how the lower Court has gone astray. According to me it is an admitted case that body of the deceased was found under the bus in injured condition. In the circumstances, the principle of "res ipsa loquitur" squarely applies and such a rebuttable presumption has to be discharged solely by the owner or the driver of the bus. I find no material having discharged this burden on the part of the appellant. In the circumstances no interference is called for in the trial Court's judgment. 4. Trial Court's judgment is therefore confirmed. Appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case no order as to costs. Certified copy is expedited. In view of the above, Civil Application is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.