MOHD.YAMIN,J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara dated 4.2.1991 by which the claim petition of the appellant was dismissed.
(2.) THE claim petition related to an accident which occurred on 3.11.1987 at about 3.00 p.m. The appellant was going in a private bus No. RJY -3347 as passenger from Banswara to Mahi Dam. When the bus reached on crossing and turned towards Mahi Dam road, another bus belonging to RSRTC bearing No. RSG -7201 driven by Rajendra, respondent, carelessly and with a high speed came from the side of Ghatol and collided with the bus in which the appellant was travelling. The appellant was sitting on the side seat of the bus which was just opposite to the bonut on front side of the bus. The appellant suffered injuries. A report was lodged with police and during investigation he was examined medically. He suffered injuries which are mentioned in Ex. 2. There was a fracture on his left arm. The appellant -claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 42,000/ - as compensation. The respondent Roadways filed reply wherein the fact of accident was admitted but it was pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Roadways bus instead it was the driver of private bus who flouted traffic rules whereby the accident took place. It was denied that the appellant claimant was travelling as a passenger in the private bus. It was further pleaded that the amount of compensation claimed had no basis, it was specifically pleaded that the driver of the private bus suddenly turned it towards Mahi Dam without asking for the side on the I.T.I, crossing, therefore, the driver of respondent Roadways bus was not at all responsible. It was also pleaded that the claim petition was defective because of non -joinder of necessary parties. The learned Judge framed relevant issues whereupon the appellant led his evidence. The respondent Roadways did not lead evidence. Then the learned Judge of the Tribunal heard both the parties and dismissed the petition of the claimant holding that it was not proved as to what was the speed of the Roadways bus and there was no evidence that the driver of the Roadways was driving the bus negligently. The learned Tribunal relied, upon the site plan in arriving to the conclusion that the negligence of the Roadways bus was not proved.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties at length.;