Judgment :- The award of Rs. 26,000/- payable to the first respondent injured as against the total compensation of Rs. 75,000/- is being challenged before this court in this appeal by the Thiruvallur Transport Corporation, the appellant herein. The claimant respondent working as a conductor in Pallavan Transport Corporation was travelling as a passenger in Pallavan Transport Corporation bus TMN 1947 plying from Saidapet to Tambaram on 30.6.1985 at about 8.45 A.M. At that time the bus TML 9329 belong to the appellant corporation came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the right side of the second respondent bus TMN 1947 with the result the claimant and two others sustained grievous injuries. 2. Seeking compensation of Rs. 75,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant, the claim petition has been filed. On the side of claimant, the claimant — P.W.I and the doctor — P.W.2 were examined. On behalf of the appellant-Corporation denying his liability R.W.1, the driver of the bus was examined. On behalf of the second respondent, Pallavan Transport Corporation R.W.2 the driver of the said bus was examined. Both the Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation and Pallavan Transport Corporation through t heir counter and the evidence from R.W.1 and 2 were putting the blame against each other. However the Tribunal concluded that the driver of the bus belonging to Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation was negligent and directed the appellant to pay the amount of Rs. 26,000/- as compensation to the claimant. 3. Mr. K.V. Subramanian, the learned counsel appearing for the Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation the appellant herein would submit the Tribunal has committed a serious illegality in holding that the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Corporation alone was negligent merely on the basis that earlier in the claim petition filed by one other injured the Tribunal had held that the driver of the appellant-Corporation was negligent and as such he would be entitled for compensation. According to the counsel for the appellant the principle of issue of estoppel on the strength of which the Tribunal concluded that the driver of the appellant-Corporation was negligent could not be applied in this case since the finding with, reference to the negligence may not have any bearing in this case in view of the fact that the Tribunal has to decide the issue raised in the instant case only on the basis of the material placed before it by the parties concerned. 4. 1 have heard the counsel appearing for the other side. The submission made by the counsel for the appellant, in my view is quite correct and sustainable, inasmuch as the Tribunal has to consider and decide the issue not on the basis of the earlier finding but only has to take into consideration the materials produced before the Tribunal in the enquiry conducted in this case. Therefore the Tribunal is wrong in holding that the driver of the appellant-Corporation was negligent merely by invoking the theory of issue estoppel. But, however, the conclusion regarding the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant-Corporation could be sustained on some other grounds. According to the claimant he has stated in the deposition that the bus belonging to the Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation, the appellant herein, came at a high speed and hit against the bus, as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries. It is also noticed that the claimant has given a complaint to the police who in turn filed a charge-sheet against the Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation as it was concluded by the police that the driver of the Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation was negligent. P.W.1 would further state that with reference to the incident he had also given a complaint to the police who ultimately filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant-Corporation. Therefore the materials placed by P.W.1 the victim, the complaint could be said to be credible in the light of the fact that R.Ws. 1 and 2 gave a different story with reference to the negligence against each other. 5. In view of the above discussion I do not find any reason to hold that the driver of the bus was not negligent, as such the conclusion by the Tribunal is correct though not on the reasons mentioned in the judgment. 1 and 2 gave a different story with reference to the negligence against each other. 5. In view of the above discussion I do not find any reason to hold that the driver of the bus was not negligent, as such the conclusion by the Tribunal is correct though not on the reasons mentioned in the judgment. In the result the appeal dismissed.