JUDGMENT 1. - By the award dated April 4, 1985, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, has awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000, with interest at the rate of 10% per annum, to the claimants. 2. The accident out of which the present appeal arises, took place on November 15, 1981 on the Chopasni Road near Shanishcharji-ka-Than. In the accident Magh Narain sustained injuries and he was removed to the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital where he died the same day. It was alleged that a Jeep bearing No. RSN-5789 driven by Ashulal, dashed against the cycle on which Magh Narain wits going on the road, The jeep belonged to the State of Rajasthan. A claim petition was filed by Smt. Chandia Devi, widow of Magh Narain and Shri Ravi Prakash, his son for compensation of Rs 3,50,000. It was alleged that the jeep was driven by Ashulal, rashly and negligently. The petition was contested by the opposite parties, the State of Rajasthan and Ashulal, who is appellant herein. Their case was that Magh Narain was an old man. He himself took an abrupt turn and due to this he fell down and collided with the jeep. According to them, the driver of the jeep was not driving the vehicle rashly or negligently. 3. The Tribunal, by the award dated April 4, 1985, held that Ashulal, driver of the jeep, was driving the vehicle at a fast speed. His act was rash and negligent which caused the accident. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000 with interest, at the rate of 10% per annum, as compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award of the Tribunal Ashulal, driver, has filed the present appeal in this court. 4. Shri N. M. Lodha, counsel for the appellant has urged that the claimant had failed to establish that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep. On going through the award passed by the Tribunal and the evidence of the witnesses, I do not find any substance in the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant. 5. The fact that an accident took place on November 15, 1981, involving the jeep RSN 5789, is not denied. It is also not denied that it was as a result of the accident that the deceased Magh Narain met his death. 5. The fact that an accident took place on November 15, 1981, involving the jeep RSN 5789, is not denied. It is also not denied that it was as a result of the accident that the deceased Magh Narain met his death. The jeep was driven by Ashulal and belonged to the State of Rajasthan, is also not disputed. What is contended by the appellant in this appeal is that the accident was the result of abrupt turn taken by Magh Narain himself and not the result of rash or negligent driving by Ashulal. On the facts admitted the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is directly attracted. Obviously, therefore, the burden was on the opposite parties, to show that the accident was not the result of negligence on the part of the driver. The Tribunal has given a finding that the accident was the result of fast driving of the jeep by Ashulal. The jeep dashed against the cycle, on account of which Magh Narain fell from it, got injured and met his death, in the hospital. To prove that the accident was not the result of negligence on the part of Ashulal, Ashulal himself and Malaram have been examined as witnesses. The presence of Malaram at the time of the accident has been doubted by the Tribunal and in my opinion, rightly. He has admitted in cross-examination that after the accident Magh Narain was removed to the hospital in a taxi and he himself went home. He was not examined by the police. Ashulal himself is an interested party. According to him, he stopped the jeep when he saw Magh Narain taking an abrupt turn. I am not impressed by his evidence. Neither the mechanic, who examined the jeep after the accident has been produced, nor any report showing the condition of the jeep after the accident to indicate that the cycle dashed on the rear portion of the jeep has been placed on the record of the case. As against the evidence of Ashulal, the evidence of Deepchand, examined as PW 4, is positive on the point that the jeep was coming at a fast speed. The jeep dashed the cycle from behind, as a result of which, the deceased was thrown on the road. His evidence find support from, Nisar Ahmed, examined as PW 3. 6. As against the evidence of Ashulal, the evidence of Deepchand, examined as PW 4, is positive on the point that the jeep was coming at a fast speed. The jeep dashed the cycle from behind, as a result of which, the deceased was thrown on the road. His evidence find support from, Nisar Ahmed, examined as PW 3. 6. I, therefore, agree with the finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving by Ashulal of the jeep with which the accident occurred and which belonged to the State of Rajasthan. 7. As regards the quantum of compensation, the amount of Rs. 60,000 appears to be a just amount to be awarded to the widow and the children of the deceased. 8. In the result, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.The parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal. *******