1 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.762/2005 RSRTC vs. Madan Lal and another. Date : 25.7.2005 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Arjun Singh for Mr. Sangeet Lodha, for the appellant. - - - - - Heard. The appellant is aggrieved against the award dated 27.10.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara in Claim Case No.576/2003 awarding compensation of Rs.53,000/- to the injured – claimant who suffered injuries while travelling in the appellant's bus no. RJ 06 P 1537. According to learned counsel for the appellant, in fact, the injured was standing on the step of the bus and, therefore, he himself was negligent and, therefore, no compensation should have been awarded in his favour. It is also submitted that the compensation awarded is on higher side. I have considerd the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the reasons given in the impugned award. It appears that the appellant took the plea that in fact, the accident was not caused by the bus of the 2 appellant and in fact, since the villagers requested the driver to take injured in his bus to the hospital, therefore, he only allowed that person to travel in the bus. The said plea of the appellant has not been proved but in fact, the appellant's own witnesses namely, Ram Singh (NAW 2), who was the conductor of the bus, in reply to the claim petition, admitted that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver. Gopal Lal (NAW 1) also admitted that he issued ticket to the injured, therefore, the plea of the appellant that the injured was not travelling in the bus and, therefore, he did not fell down from the bus, stands controverted by the appellant's own witnesses. The case of the injured was that excess passengers were allowed to travel in the bus by the driver and the conductor of the bus and this fact has been admitted by the appellant's witness Gopal Lal (NAW 1) who admitted that at Bhilwara, about 55-58 passengers were travelling in the bus. In view of the above, so far as the finding of the fact recorded by the Tribunal about the manner in which the accident occurred and the claimant suffered injury, there is no error of fact. So far as the award of compensation is concerned, the injured produced medical evidence also and a certificate evidencing that the injured suffered 10% permanent disablement in spine. Therefore, I do not find that the compensation awarded to the claimant is in excess in any 3 manner. In view of the above, no case is made out for interference in the impugned award. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya