S.S.BYAS,J. - (1.)BY his two Awards dated April 4, 1978, one passed in M.A.C. No. 39/74 and the other passed in M.A.C. No. 43/74, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Bhilwara directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 8000/ - to respondent Ramswaroop and a sum of Rs. 6000/ - to respondent Mohan Lal as compensation for the injuries sustained by them in one and the same accident. Since the questions of fact and law involved in both the appeals are common, they were heard together and are disposed of by a single judgment.
(2.)BRIEFLY stated, the facts and circumstances leadings to these appeals are as follows.
The claimants Ramswaroop and Mohan Lal were travelling in bus No. R.J.R. 9515 on April 6. 1974 which was proceeding from Bhilwara to its destination to Ajmer. On its way at a place between mile -stone 13 and 14, the R S.R.T.C. bus No. 9761 came from the opposite direction. Both the buses were running at a fast speed and when they happened to pass by the side of each other, their sides got dashed with each other. The road was wide enough to provide space to both the running buses. But as the drivers of both the buses were driven, their vehicles rashly and negligently, the buses got collided with each other in their right sides. As a result of this collision Ramswaroop and Mohan Lal sustained injuries. The right humerous, ulna and radius bones of Mohan Lal got fractured. He also sustained injuries on his right shoulder. Ramswaroop sustained commutted fracture of numerous and scapular bones. Both of them presented separated claims before the Tribunal against the drivers of both the buses and their owners. Ramswaroop claimed a sum of Rs. 38016/ - while Mohan Lal claimed a sum of Rs. 34,000/ - as compensation. It was alleged that they sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the buses by their respective drivers. The claims were resisted by all the non -petitioners who were five in number. The owners of the buses denied that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent act of driving by their drivers. Later on the driver of bus No. RJR 9515 passed away during the pendency of the claim petition. His name was, therefore, deleted. So, also the name of the driver of the bus belonging to the R.S.R.T.C. was deleted. The contesting non -petioners also challenged the quantum of compensation claimed by the two injured claimants. Necessary issues were raised. Both the parties led evidence in the claim petitions. Though the evidence in both the claim petitions was same, it was recorded separately. On the conclusion of the trials of the petitions, the Tribunal held (1) it was the driver of the R.S.R.T.C. bus who was driving the bus rashly and negligently and thereby caused the accident, (2) the driver of bus No. RJR 9515 was not rash and negligent in driving the bus and (3) the owner and insurance company of bus No. RJR 9515 were consequently absolved from the liability to pay compensation. The claims were awarded in the amounts mentioned at the very out -set against the R.S.R.T.C. Aggrieved against the said Awards the R S.R.T.C. has come up in appeals.

(3.)I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the case file carefully.