- (1.) THIS revision application is directed against an order of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal (District Judge), Pali dated May 29, 1975.
(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to this revision application may briefly be stated as under. The non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 9 filed a petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,68,000 against the petitioner and non-petitioners Nos. 10 and 11. It was alleged in the petition that on 16-4-1969 deceased Dr. Ganesh Dutt Nagar was going to Jalore from Jodhpur in his ambassador Car bearing registration No. RJW 684, About two furlongs from sanderao between mile stone Nos. 134-1 and 134-2 the Motor Bus No. RJL 7259, which was driven by non-petitioner No. 11 Ismaluddin and was owned by the petitioner namely the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, dashed against the Ambassador Car. According to the non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 9 the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver ismaluddin. As a result of the accident Dr. Ganesh Dutt Nagar died on the spot and the Ambassador car was smashed. This petition was opposed by the petitioner. The petitioner totally denied that the accident was caused by the driver Ismaluddin. It was also denied that the bus dashed against the ambassador car belonging to Ganesh Dutt Nagar. According to the petitioner the petitioner's bus did not meet with any accident whatsoever on the fateful day. A report was made about the accident to the police. The latter seized the bus bearing registration No. RJL 7259 on 26-4-1969. In proof of the fact that this very bus was involved in the accident the police seized certain articles at the time of the seizure of the Bus. The police sent those articles to the Forensic expert for his examination. It so appears that the articles sent to the Forensic laboratory were not received back. The non-petitioners numbers 1 to 9 consequently moved an application praying therein that they may be permitted to produce secondary evidence in regard to the existence and condition of the said articles. The court vide impugned order dated 29-5-75 allowed the application. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.;