1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 1604/99 R.S.R.T.C. VS. RAJESH GOYAL AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT:- FEBRUARY 4, 2009. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Mr. Virendra Agrawal for the appellant, Mr. Reasham Bhargava for the resps. BY THE COURT(ORAL) This appeal has been preferred by the R.S.R.T.C. Against the Award dated 26.7.1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, in Claim Case No. 232/88(509/99), whereby the claim petition filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was allowed and a sum of Rs. 1,17,220/- was awarded by way of compensation on account of death of Girvar Narayan Goyal caused in the accident. 2.As per the facts of the case, deceased Girvar Narain Goyal was driving 2 Ambassador Car No. RSL 143, and was going from Nasirabad towards Ajmer, along with pilgrims who had come to pay their homage at ' Sarwad Sharif' and hailed from Karnataka Statge. When he was coming from Nasirabad side towards Ajmer, Roadways Bus No. RSG 6210 came from opposite side and on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus, it dashed against taxi car, resulting into death of Girwar Narain Goyal, driver of the car along with three other passengers. On this report, a case was registered at Police Station Nasirabad. In due course, the present claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal framed the issues. Issue No. 1 was framed on the point whether Bus No. RSG 6210 was driven rashly and negligently and the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving. The said issue was decided in affirmative and compensation was awarded as stated herein above. 3. The present appeal has been filed on 3 behalf of R.S.R.T.C. challenging the Award on the point that the Tribunal has wrongly relied upon the statement of A.W. 3 Satish Chand, who is stated to be eye- witness but his testimony is tainted on the ground that his presence is doubtful and there are material contradictions in his statement. Alternatively, the finding of negligence arrived at by the Tribunal at the part of the driver of the appellant R.S.R.T.C. is also challenged on the ground that the deceased driver of the car , whose dependents had brought the claim petition was also responsible for contributory negligence. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has supported the finding of the Tribunal arrived at on the point of negligence at the part of driver of the appellant R.S.R.T.C. on the ground that the same was arrived at on the basis of evidence adduced during the inquiry and calls for no interference. 5. In view of the rival contentions and 4 on perusal of the evidence adduced during the inquiry and record of the case, it is revealed that A.W. 3 Satish Chandra Jain has been examined as an eye witness to the incident. He has categorically deposed that he was traveling in the offending bus and the bus was driven in rash and negligent manner. He has also deposed that the driver was asked by the passengers not to drive the bus so fast, but he paid no heed. He has further deposed that the car coming from the opposite direction was hit by the bus and he knew the driver of the car, who was Girvar Narain Goyal, resident of Ajmer and other occupants were Muslims by caste. Thereafter the witness went to Ajmer by a jeep and informed at his house about the incident. Inspite of searching cross-examination from this witness, nothing has come out which may impeach his credit. The appellant has not examined the driver of the bus in defence. On perusal of the site 5 inspection map Ex.3, it is further revealed that the accident occurred at the place marked 'A' and the car was also found standing on its left side of the road after accident at place marked 'B' about 21 steps between the place marked 'A' while the offending vehicle went and stopped at place marked 'C' in its extreme left of the road at a longer distance where the accident had occurred. That shows the speed of the bus and the impact it caused on car as the car was pushed back for 21 feet. Therefore, the finding of negligence entirely at the part of bus driver is found to be based on material evidence adduced on the point. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant made a reference to the judgment of this Court passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 605/93 R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Smt. Mariyamm and three connected appeals, decided on 11.4.1997, arising out of the same incident but decided by separate 6 judgment, were dismissed. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded that the question of contributory negligence was not involved in the said appeals and the appeals of the R.S.R.T.C. assailing its composite liability to the extent of 50% were dismissed by the Court. Thus, it is revealed that decision in the aforesaid appeals by this Court has got no bearing on the issue involved. 7. The learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has awarded penal interest at the rate of 18% instead of 12% in case the amount is not paid within a period of two months from the date of award, which is not sustainable in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Keshav Bahadur ( 2004) A.C.J. 648 and as such the condition of payment of 18% interest instead of 12% deserves to be set-aside. 7 8. Accordingly the appeal on the point of negligence is dismissed . The condition of 18% interest in the impugned Award instead of 12% is set- aside . Rest of the terms of the Award are maintained . Appeal is accordingly disposed of. (Guman Singh)J. 8