1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ** S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1222/1998 (RSRTC and ors. Vs. Kailash Chand and ors.) Date of Judgment : 30-06-2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Mr.Virendra Lodha,for the appellants. Mr.Rishipal Agrawal, for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to be as “RSRTC”) challenging the impugned Judgment & award dated 24.8.1998 whereby the claim petition filed by the RSRTC was dismissed on the basis of finding on issue nos.1 and 2 against the appellant RSRTC whereby the issue of causing accident due to rash & negligent driving by the opposite offending vehicle was decided against the appellant- RSRTC. Likewise, the amount of damages caused to the bus in the accident of RSRTC was also not found to be proved. 2 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-RSRTC submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to decide issue nos.1 and 2 in right perspective. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration evidence adduced during inquiry and has rightly dismissed the claim petition and same calls for no interference. 5. After hearing the rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that the appellant- RSRTC has brought this claim petition for damages amounting to Rs.40,000/- to the RSRTC bus in the accident caused by offending vehicle No.RJ-02-0719 on account of rash and negligent driving. The learned Tribunal has considered the evidence adduced on the point on behalf of the appellant and has observed that the witnesses examined on behalf of RSRTC i.e. AW-1 Roop Kishore Sharma, AME of the RSRTC and AW-2 Mahesh Chand Modi to prove rash and negligent 3 driving at the part of the offending vehicle had no personal knowledge about the incident and, as such, they could not throw any light as to how accident occurred and whether it was caused on account of rash & negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle. The appreciation of evidence made by the Tribunal does not seems to be perverse or against the record. The RSRTC has not even examined the driver or conductor who were posted in the bus at the time of accident and, as such, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal on issue no.1 calls for no interference. As regards the issue no.2 pertaining to the amount of damages, the learned Tribunal has observed that only estimated damages of the bus was shown and no evidence was led on the point as to how much expenses were actually incurred or could be incurred in carrying out repairs with details of the repairs thereof and hence issue no.2 was decided against the RSRTC. Thus the finding on issue nos.1 and 2 are based on the evidence available on record and the same calls for no interference. 4 6. Accordingly, I find no substance in the appeal and same deserves to be dismissed. Hence, appeal of the appellant-RSRTC is dismissed with no order as to costs. (GUMAN SINGH),J. Sandeep/- item no.39