Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 99 of 1986/94. 2. The aforesaid claim case was filed by one Md. Mohiuddin Siddiqui along with his wife, his minor sons and daughters and their case, inter alia, was that on 13.5.1986 at 12 noon Md. Siddiqui was travelling in a bus bearing registration No. BRZ 9394. When the bus reached near Suara Aerodrome, a truck coming from opposite direction came and crossed close to the body of the bus resulting in the amputation of the right hand of the claimant Siddiqui. The right hand of the injured was chopped off from the elbow portion. The injured was carried to Bose Clinic at Dehri and he suffered permanent disability. The claimant had examined several witnesses on the basis of which the court held that, of course, there was an accident involving the bus and the truck, but since the injured was dangling his right hand out of the window of the bus, it was his own negligence on account of which he got injury upon his right hand and, therefore, the owner of the bus was not liable for paying any compensation amount. 3. Before me it was submitted by the claimants-appellants lawyer that the bus was running at a high speed as per the evidence of some witnesses and the truck was also at a high speed and, therefore, the driver of the bus was negligent and, so, the insurance company and the owner of the bus both were liable for paying the compensation amount. Now, the question is whether the owner of the bus was liable for paying the compensation amount and whether the bus driver was negligent in driving the vehicle? 4. It has come in the evidence of CWs (claimants witnesses) that the bus driver tried to avoid the direct collision with the truck by turning the bus to its left and the result was that the rear portion of the bus came in contact with the front portion of the truck resulting into the chopping off of the hand of Md. Siddqui and another passenger had also received minor injuries. It was also in the evidence of CWs that the bus had stopped at the accident site for a few moments and then it was driven to Bose Clinic. Siddqui and another passenger had also received minor injuries. It was also in the evidence of CWs that the bus had stopped at the accident site for a few moments and then it was driven to Bose Clinic. So, it is apparent that the bus driver tried his best to avoid the direct collision and he had also carried the injured to Bose Clinic for treatment. Now, the question is whether the alleged accident took place mainly on account of negligence of the bus driver? In this connection, it is apparent that the right hand of the injured was chopped off when the truck at a high speed dashed against the body of the bus. However, if the injured was not putting his hand out of the widow, there was no chance of his receiving any injury on the right hand. No other passenger was injured in the alleged accident except Md. Siddiqui and another passenger who, perhaps, received minor injury. So, it is further apparent that Md. Siddiqui was putting his hand out of the window of the bus and it was his own fault on account of which he received injury from the truck in question. The driver of the bus is not supposed to look behind and warn his passengers from any probable injury from the vehicles coming from the opposite direction. It was entirely the fault of Md. Siddiqui that he received the injury upon his hand which became permanently impaired. It is also apparent that it was the negligent and rash driving of the truck by its driver in crossing the road so close to the body of the bus that resulted into the injury to Siddiqui. So, it was the truck driver who was responsible for causing the injury upon the right hand of Md. Siddiqui. The truck driver or its owner has not been impleaded in this case. The circumstances of this case do not indicate that there was any negligence on the part of the bus driver resulting in injury upon Md. Siddiqui and, therefore, I am of the opinion that claim case of Md. Siddiqui was rightly rejected. 5. In the result, I am of the opinion that this appeal is also not maintainable and sustainable. Hence, this miscellaneous appeal is dismissed.