JUDGMENT A. Banerji, Actg. C. J. - This appeal arises out of an Award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dehradun, date 14-4-1977. The claimant Bhimsen Dhamija was awarded compensation of Rs. 24,575 with future interest at 6 per cent against the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, parties were directed to bear their own costs. The appeal has been filed by the U. P State Road Transport Corporation. 2. We have heard Mr. S. K. Sharma learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. L. P. Naithani, learned counsel for the claimant, respondent, Bhimsen Dhamija. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that on the 9th March 1975, Bhimsen Dhaimija was travelling by the Bus of the appellant. The Bus struck the left side of the culvert near the petroleum Institute and as a result the claimant Bhimsen Dhamija sustained injuries and he was taken to Doon Hospital. The claimants case is that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. He claimed compensation of Rs. 1, 25,000 by way of damages. The stand taken by the appellant before the Claims Tribunal was that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the Driver of the Bus and it was a case of pure accident caused by unfastening of tie-road of the Bus Further, it was stated that the amount of damages claimed was excessive. The Claims Tribunal framed the following issues :- 1(a) Whether the accident took place because of any negligence on the part of the driver of the Bus No. USK-7364 ? (b) Whether the accident took place because the tie-rod of the vehicle got out ? (c) Effect in either case ? 2. What is the damages caused to the claimant by the accident ? 3. To what relief, if any, is the claimant entitled and against whom ? 4. As far as the first issue is concerned, the Claims Tribunal held that the accident took place because of rash driving of the Bus by its driver and, as such, the Corporation is liable to compensate the claimant. In regard to issue No. 2, the finding was that in respect of claim of Rs. 1,25,000 the claimant had given details of medical expenses etc., of Rs. 50,500. In regard to issue No. 2, the finding was that in respect of claim of Rs. 1,25,000 the claimant had given details of medical expenses etc., of Rs. 50,500. The Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant was only entitled to a total sum of Rs. 24,575. Consequently, the claim was decreed for the above amount. 5. In this appeal, Mr. S. K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant urged that it was a case of pure accident caused by unfastening of tie-rod. This matter has been considered by the claims Tribunal and it has rejected the plea that the tie-rod got unfastened. The claims Tribunal says that there is no evidence whatsoever in this regard, Further, the claims Tribunal has remarked that the appellant has its own workshop and experts, who would have positively examined the cause of the accident. Relevant papers in this regard had not been produced in spite of notice of demand by the claimant. The Claims Tribunal has also opened that this raises an adverse presumption. 6. What is significant is that the Driver of the Bus, they had been examined by the appellant, does not support the theory of the unfastening of the tie-rod. His version is that the steering wheel got locked. The claims Tribunal has drawn a correct conclusion that the liability remained with the carrier. We are in entire agreement with the conclusion drawn by the Claims Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record. We find no reason to take a different view. It must be clearly understood that the public carriers have special responsibility in carrying passengers on payment i.e., on purchase of tickets. They cannot be absolved of their responsibility unless there is some contributory negligence by the person who has suffered damages. There is no case of contributory negligence. The claimant was the passenger in the bus and the driver who represented the appellant, was duty bound to drive the vehicle and deliver the passengers intact at the destination. There is no dispute that the claimant was injured. He had fracture of the femur and four ribs. This is a quite serious matter. It means that the impact was severe. The conclusion drawn by the Claims Tribunal that it was a case of rash driving is, therefore, proper. 7. There is no dispute that the claimant was injured. He had fracture of the femur and four ribs. This is a quite serious matter. It means that the impact was severe. The conclusion drawn by the Claims Tribunal that it was a case of rash driving is, therefore, proper. 7. On the question of quantum of damages awarded, we do not find any scope for taking a different view. Consequently, we find no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed with costs.