P.K.LOHRA,J. - (1.) Appellant-Corporation has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') to assail impugned judgment and award dated 7th of September, 2000, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaur (for short, 'learned Tribunal'), whereby learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition of appellant under Section 166 of the Act for compensation in respect of damage to property.
(2.) The facts, in brief, giving rise to this appeal are that on 21st of March, 1994, Corporation bus bearing No.RJ-14-P-1745, which was lent to Indian Railways on contract, met with an accident on Jodhpur Nagaur route beyond 8 kms from Khinvsar as the Corporation bus collided with truck No.RNQ 7945. In the accident, one Arun Joshi serving as TTE in the Railways suffered serious injuries and eventually succumbed to death and the Corporation bus was also damaged. The legal heirs and dependents of Arun Joshi laid a claim petition before learned Tribunal. The appellant Corporation also laid a compensation claim for property damage to the tune of Rs.1,09,258/-. The learned Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and award, dismissed the claim petition of the Corporation. As a matter of fact, the averments contained in the claim petition regarding rash and negligent driving of truck, which was insured with third respondent-insurance company, was seriously contested by the owner of bus. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings, framed five issues for determination, and thereafter, proceeded to decide issue No.1 and 3 conjointly. Regarding cause of accident and alleged contributory negligence of both the vehicles, upon appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal recorded its finding that accident occurred due to negligence of drivers of both the vehicles and apportioned negligence on the part of drivers of both the vehicles equally. While adverting to issue No.2, regarding the amount of compensation claimed by the appellant Corporation, the learned Tribunal has found that the documentary and oral evidence furnished by Corporation is insufficient to substantiate the claim. The learned Tribunal has also not found the evidence of three witnesses, who appeared on behalf of appellant, of sterling worth so as to award any compensation. The decision on issue No.2 against the appellant, eventually, entailed dismissal of the claim of appellant-Corporation.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that learned Tribunal has seriously erred in appreciation of documentary and oral evidence tendered by appellant Corporation. It is submitted by learned counsel that although umpteen material was available on record coupled with oral evidence of three witnesses appeared on behalf of appellant-Corporation, yet the learned Tribunal has not examined the said evidence appropriately. Learned counsel submits that while discarding evidence of the appellant, learned Tribunal has not recorded cogent reasons. Learned counsel Mr. Purohit would contend that findings and conclusions of the learned Tribunal on issue No.2 are based on mere ipse dixit of learned Tribunal while eschewing material evidence available on record and therefore the findings, as such, are not only perverse but inconsistent and contradictory.;