Judgment :- Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed against the order of the MACT declining to grant compensation to the appellant for the injury sustained by her in a road accident. According to the appellant, accident happened when the driver of the KSRTC bus in which appellant was traveling, applied sudden break without indication to the vehicles following it and consequently a school bus that was following the KSRTC bus hit the bus in which the appellant was traveling leading to injury to her. Appellant rests her claim based on the Police case against the driver of the KSRTC bus. MACT however noticed that in the claim petition, the driver or owner of the school bus which hit the KSRTC bus leading to injury to the appellant, were not made parties. Besides this, MACT did not accept negligence alleged on the part of the KSRTC bus driver. Before us, counsel for the appellant read over the Police charge against the KSRTC bus driver wherein it is stated that the accident occurred on account of the KSRTC bus driver suddenly stopping the bus without giving signal to the vehicle following it. Even though notice is not served on KSRTC, we do not think any fresh notice is required because we do not propose to issue any orders against KSRTC. 2. On going through the award and the Police charge against the KSRTC driver and after hearing counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the Police case instituted against the KSRTC driver is absolutely untenable. Even on the facts admitted, it is clear that the accident occurred on account of the school bus following the KSRTC bus hitting it from behind. Applying break suddenly by the KSRTC driver is the reason for the accident. Police seems to assume that a driver applying break suddenly should do so after giving indication or signal to the vehicle following it. We are unable to accept this proposition because application of break suddenly is a reflex action and is not a premeditated thing done after giving indication or after giving signal to the vehicle following. Police seems to assume that a driver applying break suddenly should do so after giving indication or signal to the vehicle following it. We are unable to accept this proposition because application of break suddenly is a reflex action and is not a premeditated thing done after giving indication or after giving signal to the vehicle following. Moreover, a vehicle following another vehicle should take into account the eventuality of the vehicle going in its front stopping abruptly which may be for large number of reasons such as a person or animal jumping in front of it or another vehicle interfering in its way or even a sudden obstacle appearing in the road. In all such eventualities any moving vehicle will stop abruptly and the driver applies break suddenly without any premeditation and it is more in the nature of a reflex action than a pre-meditated act to stop the vehicle. No such driver can be blamed for negligence or rash driving and the allegation of the Police in this case against the KSRTC driver is thoroughly absurd. In fact, every vehicle following another should keep a clearance so that in the event of the vehicle going in front stopping abruptly, the vehicle following should be in a position to stop without hitting the back of the vehicle stopping abruptly in front. In this view of the matter, we do not accept the stand that the accident is on account of want of care by the driver of the school bus which hit the KSRTC bus from behind. Consequently, MACT rightly rejected appellants claim for compensation against KSRTC. Even though counsel for the appellant pointed out the injuries and grievance of the appellant and sought a remand of the matter to the MACT, we are unable to accept this contention because an entirely new claim, if at all tenable, has to be raised by the appellant against the driver, owner and insurer of the school bus and cannot be done by impleading or amending the petition which was squarely directed against the KSRTC. We, therefore, leave it open to the appellant to prefer any claim petition against driver, owner and insurer of the school bus. Appeal is dismissed with the above observation. We, therefore, leave it open to the appellant to prefer any claim petition against driver, owner and insurer of the school bus. Appeal is dismissed with the above observation. There will be direction to the MACT to release the original documents to the appellant within two weeks from date of production of this judgment along with an undertaking by the appellant that this judgment is accepted and no further appeal will be filed against the same.