JUDGMENT This Misc. Appeal is against the award dated 11.4.1997 passed by the IVth Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Morena in Claims Case No.105/96. Briefly stated the facts are that on 30.12.1993 at about 10.15 morning, appellant Dr. Arun Kumar Sharma was going Morena to Dhau1pur on motor cycle T.V.S. Suzuki bearing registration No. U.A.G.919 alongwith Dr. Gyan Chand on a moderate speed. It is alleged that bus belonging to Rajsthan State Road Transport Corporation bearing registration No.RJ.-14/P-0822 driven by Nasruddin dashed the motor-cycle as a result of which the appellant and Dr. Gyan Chand sustained injuries. A report was lodged at Police Station Civil Lines, Morena on 30.12.93. The Police Station Civil Lines, Morena registered Crime No. 382/93 and seized the concerned bus and motor-cycle and after, the investigation filed challan. The respondents denied the claim and contended that accident had not occurred and the claimant Dr. Arun Kumar Sharma and Gyan Chand who was sitting on pillion of their own fault fell down and got injured for which respondents are not liable. Learned Tribunal opined that no accident had occurred as alleged by claimant and the claimant had not examined Dr. Gyan Chand, the pillion rider. Hence, claim was dismissed. The claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the dismissal of the claim. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in this Court filed an application LA.No.9010/98 under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. for taking on record certified copy of award passed by IIIrd Additional Motor Claims Tribunal, Morena in Claim Case No.115/96 passed in favour of Dr. Gyan Chand Arya against the respondents. It is a certified copy. The contents of which are not disputed. The respondents very fairly admitted that the claim was filed by Dr. Gyan Chand being claim Case No.115/96 and the Claims Tribunal has held that an accident had occurred on 30.12.93 with the offending bus and motor cycle No. U.A.G.919 driven by Dr. Arun Kumar Sharma. The Claim Tribunal held that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and awarded the compensation a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in favour of Dr. Gyan Chand Arya. Arun Kumar Sharma. The Claim Tribunal held that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and awarded the compensation a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in favour of Dr. Gyan Chand Arya. On the basis of finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No.115/96 regarding the same accident it has been contended that the impugned order passed by the claims tribunal in Claim Case No.105/96 is not sustainable in law and the impugned award holding contrary be set aside. It is partinent to note that the appellant had filed a claim which was registered as Claim Case No.105/96 and the said Claim case was tried by the IVth Additional Claims Tribunal. The Claim Case preferred by Dr. Gyan Chand the pillion rider was registered as Claim Case No.115/96 and the same was sent for trial to the IIlrd Additional Motor Claims Tribunal. Since the claims filed by Dr. Arun Kumar the driver of the motor cycle and Dr. Gyan Chand the pillion rider had arisen out of the same accident the Claims Tribunal/District Judge ought to have seen that they are tried together by one Tribunal. It is true that the claimants were different but the accident was same and the respondents were common. The parties and their counsel also failed to point out this to the Claims Tribunal. They also did not file any application and brought it to the notice of the Presiding Officers. It was the duty of the parties and their counsel specially those of respondents to have brought it to the notice of the Tribunal that two claims arise out of the same accident and are pending in different Accident Claims Tribunals. Had that being done the situation arisen in the instant case have been avoided and there would not have been contradictory finding as has happened. It is also pertinent to note that Claims Case No.115/96 was decided on 27.3.96 and the respondents knew that such an award has been made. They had not preferred any appeal against that and yet this fact/award was not brought to the notice of IVth Additional Claims Tribunal. The respondent No.1 is statutory body and expected to act fairly specially in matters like this. It cannot be lost sight of that provisions of Motor Vehicles Act are benovelent. They had not preferred any appeal against that and yet this fact/award was not brought to the notice of IVth Additional Claims Tribunal. The respondent No.1 is statutory body and expected to act fairly specially in matters like this. It cannot be lost sight of that provisions of Motor Vehicles Act are benovelent. Having considered the material on record in the opinion of this Court the award passed in Claim Case No.115/96 between Dr. Gyan Chand Arya v. Rajasthan Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam and Others and order dated 27.3.96 filed in this appeal is relevant and admissible in evidence and on that basis alone it is sufficient to hold that the accident had occurred with the offending bus due to rash and negligent driving of Nasruddin. Even otherwise in this case the claimant has himself examined as PW I and Bal Krashan Shukla as PW2. Opposite party the respondent examined conductor Amarpal Singh as DWI. The evidence of PWl and PW2 goes to show that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus. PW1 Arun Kumar Sharma has stated that while he was going on motor-cycle towards its left side the offending bus which was being driven in high speed rashly and negligently hit him. There is nothing to discredit him. PW2 Bal Krashan Shukla has also stated that the motor-cycle was being driven in a moderate speed towards left side and the bus of Rajsthan Rajya Parivahan Nigam dashed the motor-cycle as a result thereof the driver of motor-cycle sustained injuries. In cross-examination he has stated that the bus was trying to over take the motor cycle and because of that the accident occurred. The Driver of the offending bus has not been examined and Amar Pal Singh a conductor has been examined whose testimony does not demolish the claimants's evidence. In this case evidence has been discarded on the ground that pillion rider has not been examined. The reasoning adopted to discard the evidence is not sustainable in law. The finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver is contrary to material on record and is set aside. The Claims Tribunal has arrived at finding that the claimant Dr. Arun Kumar sustained fracture in left hand of radious bone. Dr. The finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver is contrary to material on record and is set aside. The Claims Tribunal has arrived at finding that the claimant Dr. Arun Kumar sustained fracture in left hand of radious bone. Dr. Gyan Chand as noted above has been awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. The injuries are mentioned in Ex. P-10 including fracture as mentioned in Ex. p-11 . In the opinion of this Court it is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the appellant. The amount will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till realisation. In view of what has been stated above, the appeal is allowed with cost. The award passed by the IVth Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena in Claim Case No. t 05/96 is set aside The claimant-appellal1t is awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. twenty five thousand only) with interest at the rate of t 2% per annum from the date of application till realisation. The amount be paid in six months failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The period of 6 months would begin from the date of production of certified copy before the respondents.