Judgment :- Pandiyan Roadways Corporation is the appellant herein. Dharmalingam, the claimant, filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs. 70,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant-Corporation. 2. On 15.2.93 at about 3.40 P.M., the bus belonging to the appellant-Corporation bearing registration No. TML 6463 was proceeding from Karunkalkudi to Melur. The claimant was one of the passengers. At that time, the tractor bearing registration No. TDU 5025 came in the opposite direction. Since the bus dashed against the tractor, the claimant, who was sitting inside the bus sustained serious injuries. 3. On the side of the appellant-Corporation, R.W.1, the driver of the bus was examined and on the side of the owner of the tractor, R.W.2, the driver of the tractor was examined. Since the tractor was insured with M/s. New India Assurance Co Ltd., the said Insurance company was also made as a party in the claim petition. 4. R.W.1, the driver of the bus, would state that he was not negligent and the accident was caused only due to the negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. On the other hand, the driver of the tractor, R.W.2 would put the blame on R.W.1. 5. On consideration of the materials, the Tribunal concluded that there is no negligence on the part of the tractor driver and found that the driver of the bus was negligent and directed the appellant-Corporation to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant. 6. This is challenged by the appellant mainly on the ground that when there are materials to show that the accident took place in the middle of the road, the Tribunal has failed to fix the negligence on the part of both the drivers. 7. I heard the counsel for both sides. 8. On going through the award of the Tribunal, it is clear that the evidence of R.Ws. 1 and 2 had been discussed in detail and the Tribunal arrived at a correct conclusion with reference to the negligence on the part of the bus driver. It is seen from the records that there was damage to the right front portion of the bus and as far as the tractor is concerned, there was some damage to the angle on the rear side of the trailer. 9. It is seen from the records that there was damage to the right front portion of the bus and as far as the tractor is concerned, there was some damage to the angle on the rear side of the trailer. 9. It is also seen from the records that sufficient space was available on the left side of the bus, i.e., 4 feet in tar road and 6 feet in mud road. This would make it clear that the driver of the bus would have certainly averted the accident, Had he proceeded on the left side of the road leaving sufficient space to the other road users. 10. Moreover, as indicated earlier, the damage was found only on the front portion of the bus. This shows that the bus only hit the rear portion of the tractor due to which the injured, who was one of the passengers in the bus, sustained serious injuries. 11. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this appeal and consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.