K.C.SHARMA,J. - (1.) THROUGH this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant Corporation seeks to quash the award dated 26.4.1994 by which the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,97,000.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellant Corporation has vehemently contended that the Tribunal has committed grave error in arriving at a finding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of the bus of Corporation. Learned Counsel contended that the plea raised on behalf of the Corporation before the learned Tribunal was that a truck was going ahead of motor cycle, which was driven by Azad Husain and Kamal Kant was sitting on the pillion seat. Azad Husain tried to overtake the truck and while overtaking the truck, the motor cycle collided with the bus of the Corporation which was on way from Kota to Jaipur. On this strength it was argued that driver of the motor cycle himself was responsible for the accident and, therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in holding the driver of the bus negligent for the accident. In the alternative, learned Counsel argued that in any case it was a case of contributory negligence of drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above argument. Having gone through the award impugned in this appeal I find that the learned Tribunal in arriving at a finding that accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of bus No. RNP -1713 belonging to the appellant Corporation, has taken into consideration every aspect of the matter, in particular the evidence of Harnam Singh, who happened to be an eye -witness of the accident and had lodged the FIR of the accident. In this view of the mater, it cannot be said to be a case of contributory negligence. It is worthy to notice that the appellant Corporation got examine only the driver of the bus involved in the accident. Curiously enough, even none of the passengers travelling in the bus at the relevant time was got examined and hence I see no reason to disbelieve or discard the testimony of Harnam Singh, an eyewitness of the incident. It must, therefore, be concluded that in passing the award the learned Tribunal has appreciated the evidence in true perspective and hence the impugned award calls for no interference.
(3.) RESULTANTLY , the appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed.;