THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD L.P.A.NO.144 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: {Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao} The appellant-Corporation filed this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 08.02.20021 in A.A.O.No.1941 of 1991 in allowing the appeal and setting aside the dismissal order dated 16.09.1991 passed in O.P.No.321 of 1998 on the file of the I Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman, MACT, Chittoor. The Corporation contested the said claim and denied the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle and also the quantum. After holding enquiry, both the sides produced their evidence and on the basis of the said evidence, the Tribunal held that there is no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle belonging to the appellant-Corporation and dismissed the said claim. Aggrieved by the same, the matter was carried to this Court. By re- appreciating the entire material on record, the learned Single Judge of this Court found that there is rash and negligence and the finding given by the Tribunal that there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle was unsustainable and the same was set aside. Further, it was specifically held that the driver of the RTC bus has driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. In view of the same, the learned Single Judge granted compensation of an amount of Rs.90,800/- along with interest at 12% per annum. Hence, this appeal. Though several contentions sought to be urged in regard to the finding given by the learned Single Judge in relation to the rash and negligence, since the said finding is purely on fact, that too based on appreciation of the evidence as available on record and as supported by P.Ws.1 and 5, it is not open for this Court to come to a different conclusion and nothing has been pointed out as to why their evidence cannot possibly be accepted. In view of the above, we do not find any question of law much less a substantial one to warrant interference with the finding of the learned Single Judge of this Court. The L.P.A. is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) __________________ (P.DURGA PRASAD, J) 2nd February 2011 RRB