S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 451/2001 RSRTC Vs. Choti Devi & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 24/11/2009 1/2 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 451/2001 (RSRTC Vs. Choti Devi & Ors.) DATE OF ORDER : 24/11/2009 HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Anil Bachhawat, for the appellant – RSRTC Mr.B.L.Choudhary, for the respondent claimants. This appeal is directed against the award of MACT, Bhilwara dated 27/11/2000 deciding claim case no. 3/95. Learned counsel Mr. Anil Bachhawat drew the attention of the Court towards para 6 of the award in which findings of issue no.1 were returned in favour of appellant RSRTC and it is found that the deceased driver of the RSRTC Bus itself was not responsible for the accident and he was not driving the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner, therefore, the appellant RSRTC was not liable to pay the compensation, yet in the operative part of the award, the respondent no.2 namely, present appellant-RSRTC has been held liable to pay the amount of compensation in question. Learned counsel for the appellant RSRTC further submitted that since the driver of the truck involved in the accident, truck no. RSO 6181, was responsible for the said accident, the respondent no.1 – driver of the truck and respondent no.1-A – owner of the said truck were responsible to pay the amount of compensation. Learned counsel for the claimants Mr. B.L.Choudhary does not dispute this position that the finding of issue no.1 was in favour of S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 451/2001 RSRTC Vs. Choti Devi & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 24/11/2009 2/2 appellant-RSRTC. On a perusal of the impugned award also indicates that though the finding of issue no.1 was in favour of the appellant RSRTC, in the final operative part of the award, the respondents no.1, 1-A and 2 have been held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs. 4,03,500/- in question for the death of Durga Ram - driver of RSRTC Bus. In the operative portion of the award, the words respondent no.2 in Hindi appear to have been added by hand writing presumably of the Presiding Officer on account of some confusion as the respondent no.2 – present appellant RSRTC was exonerated. Nobody appears for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, the driver and owner of the truck in question to oppose these submissions. Consequently, this appeal by RSRTC is allowed and the operative portion of the award dated 27/11/2000 is modified and respondent no.2 mentioned therein shall be treated as deleted and it is held that only respondents no.1 and 1-A, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle would be liable to pay the amount of compensation in question. No order as to costs. (DR.VINEET KOTHARI),J. Item no.42 baweja/-