Background: In routine practice, direct laryngoscopy using a macintosh laryngoscope remains the gold standard technique for intubation but if difficult laryngoscopy is anticipated, or occurs unexpectedly following induction of general anaesthesia, intubation using video laryngoscope and fibreoptic bronchoscope can be an invaluable option. Aims and objectives: It was a prospective randomized observational clinical study. After taking informed consent, 60 patients with ASA physical status Ӏ–ӀӀ, in the age group of 18–60 years were randomly allocated into two groups of 30 patients each . Group [VL] patients were intubated with C–MAC Video laryngoscope while in Group [FB] patients were intubated with Fiberoptic bronchoscope. Results: There were no significant differences between both groups in demographic data, Number of attempts and success rate. The mean intubation time in group VL was 20.14±2.83 seconds and 67.9±38.50 seconds in group FB. The intubation time was significantly longer in fiberoptic intubation as compared to C MAC Video laryngoscope .The mean intubation time showed significant difference (p<0.05). Conclusion: C– Mac Video laryngoscopy is better than fibreoptic bronchoscopy in relation to intubation time, number of attempts and success rate. C– Mac Video laryngoscopy is better choice for unanticipitaed difficult airway under general anaesthesia whereas fibreoptic bronchoscopy is better for awake and anticipitated difficult airway