JUDGMENT 1. - This first appeal under Section 96, CPC arises out of the judgment and decree dated 28-8-81 passed by learned District Judge, Jodhpur, decreeing the plaintiffs suit for Rs. 17,636.64 against appellants in a suit for damages. 2. The facts may be put in narrow compass, plaintiff respondent used to ply bus RJQ 1745 on Jodhpur-Jalore route. On 15-2-73 when the bus started from Neemla bus stand, it was on its left side but at the same time truck RJQ 6739 came from Pali side and dashed against the bus. It was averred that the truck was being driven by Poosa Ram rashly and negligently. Besides that the passengers of the bus sustained injuries, many of them died, the bus was also damaged. It was averred that the plaintiff had to spend Rs. 18,154 on the repairs of the bus and that the plaintiff had to suffer because the bus could not be used for many days. A total sum of Rs. 35,000 was claimed. In the written statement, the factum of accident was not denied. However, it was averred that the truck was being driven at the speed of 10-15 miles per hour but the bus was being driven rashly and negligently and it had dashed against the truck. It was also averred that there was minor damage in the bus and there was no need of getting its entire body renewed. It was also stated that the plaintiff could have got the bus repaired at Jodhpur and he was not entitled to the amount he spent in taking the bus to Nathdwara for repairs. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed 6 issues which are to the following effect:- (1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by truck driver defendant No. 2? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages as detailed in paras Nos. 8, 9 and 11 of the plaint? (3) Whether the claim is not maintainable against the Insurance Co. as there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the Insurance Co? (4) Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? (5) Whether the truck driver was having bearing no valid licence at the time of accident and hence Insurance Company is not liable as defendant No. 1 has broken the terms of the agreement? (6) Relief? 3. (4) Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? (5) Whether the truck driver was having bearing no valid licence at the time of accident and hence Insurance Company is not liable as defendant No. 1 has broken the terms of the agreement? (6) Relief? 3. In support of his case, plaintiff Munnilal entered into the witness box and examined PW2 Daud Khan, PW 3 Suresh Chand, PW 4 Kailash Puri, PW 5 Gafoor Khan and PW 6 Nandlal. In rebuttal, defendant Ghewarlal entered into witness box and examined DW 2 Poosa Ram, DW 3 Ganga Ram and DW 4 Bansilal. The learned District Judge, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, found issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. Under Issue No. 2 it was found that the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs. 17,636.64 ps. only. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 5. The first contention of Mr. Kachhwaha was that it was a case of contributory negligence and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. In this connection, he submitted that the trial Court has erred in relying on the judgment of the criminal Court and the photographs produced in the case. His second contention was that the amount awarded is excessive and the plaintiff was not entitled to any sum of the loss of income he suffered because of the non user of the bus for repairs period. 6. On the other hand Mr. Nagori, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that the trial Court has carefully considered each and every evidence and has come to a correct finding that the driver of the truck was wholly responsible for the accident and it was not a case of contributory negligence. He submitted that this Court should not disturb the finding of the trial Court in the absence of substantial error in the judgment. He further submitted that the amount of damages awarded is in no manner excessive as the trial Court has allowed only Rs. 200 per turn for a period of 4 months 8 days. 7. I have given the matter my thoughtful consideration. First question to be considered is whether there was contributory negligence of the driver of the bus in this accident? 200 per turn for a period of 4 months 8 days. 7. I have given the matter my thoughtful consideration. First question to be considered is whether there was contributory negligence of the driver of the bus in this accident? Before we proceed to examine the statements of witnesses, it may be stated that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the photographs could not be used to establish the negligence of the driver is not without merit. The photographs are Exs. 1 to 9 and 14. However, neither the person who had taken those photographs has been examined nor the person who had enlarged them has been examined. To prove these photographs the plaintiff has examined PW 4 Kailash Puri. He has deposed that he was engaged in photography business and that the photos Ex. 1 to 14 were prepared in his shop. He further deposed that negatives of some of the photos were with him which he had produced before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a case. According to him Ex. 2, Ex. 9, Ex. 13 and Ex. 14 (sic) he has deposed that these are the negatives. Kailash Puri has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he had not taken those photographs and he had also not developed them. Simply because a person who was working on his shop had taken those photographs and had enlarged them, it cannot be said that the photographs have been duly proved. In the case of Mst. Heera Devi v. Smt. Bhabha Kantidas, AIR 1977 Gauhati 31 the Full Bench held that reliance cannot be placed on the photographs which were said to have been taken at the time of accident the negatives were not produced, even though the Photographer was examined. This question also came up for consideration before the Bombay High Court in the case of Laxman Ganpati v. Ansuyabai, AIR 1976 Bombay 264 wherein it was clearly held that it is only when the person who takes the photographs and develops them into negative himself, comes into the witness box and deposes both the facts that the negatives become admissible in evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act. Obviously, the trial Court has committed error in relying on these documents to decide the question of negligence. 8. Obviously, the trial Court has committed error in relying on these documents to decide the question of negligence. 8. The judgment of the trial Court indicates that the judgment of the criminal case filed against Poosa Ram, driver of the truck was taken note of. It is well settled that the judgment of the criminal Court is not at all relevant in a civil case. In the case of Karamchand v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 1244 it was held that decisions of civil Courts are binding on criminal Courts but converse is not true. This Court also had occasion to deal with this point in the case of Onkarmal v. Banwarilal, AIR 1962 Raj 127 wherein it was observed that a judgment of a criminal Court is irrelevant in the subsequent civil suit based on the same cause of action and the civil Court must independently of the decision of the criminal Court investigate facts and come to its own finding. It is, thus, obvious that the trial Court should not have taken help from the decision of the criminal Court in arriving at a finding on whether defendant Poosa Ram drove the truck negligently. 9. Now the question that arises for consideration whether ignoring the evidence of photographs and that of the judgment of the criminal Court, the finding of the trial Court regarding negligence of the defendant is sustainable. 10. PW 2 Daud Khan who was driver of the bus, deposes that he had off loaded passengers at Neemla bus stand and he hardly moved at some distance that there was accident. According to him, the speed of his bus could not be more than 10 kms per hour as the bus had started from the stand. He further states that the truck came waivering and though he had taken his bus on the 'Kachcha, the truck dashed against the rear side of the bus. To the same effect is the statement of Suresh Chand PW 3. The statements of Daud Khan and Suresh Chand cannot be disbelieved on the mere ground that they did not state facts in detail in their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. recorded in connection with the FIR lodged for the accident. It is common knowledge that the statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. are not recorded in detail. The statements of Daud Khan and Suresh Chand cannot be disbelieved on the mere ground that they did not state facts in detail in their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. recorded in connection with the FIR lodged for the accident. It is common knowledge that the statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. are not recorded in detail. In any case, it is not suggested that in those statements the witnesses had not stated that the driver of the truck was driving the truck rashly and negligently. It is, therefore, futile to urge that the witnesses have made improvements in their statements and their statements could not be relied upon. 11. Defendant Poosaram has deposed that there was an overloaded Mercedes truck which was having cover (Tirpal) over it, coming from the opposite direction and seeing that truck, he had taken his truck on Kachcha and after that truck crossed him as he swerved his truck to take it on the road, the bus came from Pali side and dashed against the truck. However, in the written statement, there was not a mention of Mercedes truck, instead TMB truck was referred. Obviously, there was discrepancy in the written statement and the statement of the defendant. The learned District Judge has rightly observed on the basis of statement of Ganga Ram (DW 2) who claimed to be the occupant of bus, that the truck which was moving ahead the bus, was being driven at a very slow speed, and therefore, the speed of the bus could not be excessive, The facts which appear on record clearly indicate that this accident had occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck only and there was no fault on the part of the bus driver. That being so, the question of contributory negligence does not arise. 12. It is well settled that normally in the decision of the trial Court which depends upon the appreciation of the oral evidence adduced in the case, the appellate Court should be slow to disturb the finding because the trial Judge has the additional advantage of noting the demeanour of the witnesses. Vide : Sarju Prasad v. Jwaleshwari Prasad AIR 1951 SC 120 . In the instant case, the evidence taken as a whole reasonably justifies the conclusions which the trial Court has arrived at. Vide : Sarju Prasad v. Jwaleshwari Prasad AIR 1951 SC 120 . In the instant case, the evidence taken as a whole reasonably justifies the conclusions which the trial Court has arrived at. Undoubtedly, the plea of contributory negligence is a good defence in a suit for damages but on the basis of the evidence produced in the case, it cannot be found that there was even some negligence on the part of the bus driver. That being so, the first contention of Mr. Kachhawah is not acceptable. 13. Now we switch over to the second contention of Mr. Kachhawah that the damages awarded are excessive. It was argued that in the statement Nandlal (PW 6) it was stated that only a sum of Rs. 7,800 was paid to him for the repairs of the bus and, therefore, more amount could not be decreed. A reading of the judgment of the trial Court indicates that the Court has accepted the statement of Nandlal in this regard. Though according to the plaintiff, he had paid Rs. 3,800 in addition to Rs. 7,800 to Nandlal, but this part of the plaintiff's case has not been accepted by the trial Court, and only a sum of Rs. 3,800 has been decreed for labour charges besides Rs. 6,666.66 for the materials purchased, and Rs. 800 for painting. From the vouchers, the expenditure amount is fully proved and the trial Court has not erred in granting a total sum of Rs. 11,266.66 for the repairs of the bus. 14. There is no substance in this contention that the bus ought to have been got repaired at Jodhpur. It is the satisfaction of the person concerned which matters in such cases. One may trust a mechanic of different place only. The amount claimed for taking the bus to Nathdwara is also not much and therefore on the ground that the bus could be repaired at Jodhpur also the claim in this connection cannot be refused. 15. Besides the above sum, the trial Court has decreed a sum of Rs. 5,780.58 for the loss to plaintiff suffered due to the non user of the bus for about 4 months 8 days calculated at the rate of Rs. 200 per turn. It may be noticed that even defendant has admitted in his statement that plaintiff could certainly earn Rs. 200 on one turn while using the bus. 16. 5,780.58 for the loss to plaintiff suffered due to the non user of the bus for about 4 months 8 days calculated at the rate of Rs. 200 per turn. It may be noticed that even defendant has admitted in his statement that plaintiff could certainly earn Rs. 200 on one turn while using the bus. 16. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant was that such amount could not be decreed. In this connection he has referred to the cases of Kota Transport Limited v. Jhalawar Transport, AIR 1960 Raj 224 and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Virendra Kumar, AIR 1985 Raj 170 . In both these cases this question did not come up for consideration as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to the loss of income which is suffered because of the non-user of the vehicle during repairs period. In my opinion, there is every justification for allowing such amount to the plaintiff because it was not for the fault of the plaintiff that the bus remained stranded. The bus was being plied regularly on the road and, therefore, if it could not be used because of the accident the Court was justified in awarding some amount for the loss suffered by the plaintiff. The amount awarded cannot be held to be excessive on this count. 17. No other point was pressed before me. 18. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******