JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is against the award dated 20th August, 2000 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in M.A.C.T. Case No. 185/1994 by which the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 51,000/- along with interest 6% per annum to the claimant-respondent against the appellant. 2. The facts of the case are that the claimant was going to Nayapura Bus Stand on 20th September, 1993. The bus No. RJ 14/P 2318, which was being driven by Kuna Ram, the driver employed by the appellant-non-claimant, came from behind and hit the claimant. It is alleged that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver Kuna Ram and, in this accident, the claimant fell down in one 'Nala'. The claimant remained in the hospital for 20 days and there was a fracture in the leg of the claimant. 3. The claimant submitted claim-petition claiming Rs. 1,57,000/-. The reply was filed on behalf of the non-claimant appellant wherein it is stated that on 20th September, 1993 Kuna Ram was driving the above bus while coming from Udaipur to Barmer and near Nayapura Bridge, a truck came and, therefore, Kuna Ram took the bus in the side of the road. There was no accident at that time but while returning from Barmer to Udaipur, the police stopped the bus of the appellant and then Kuna Ram came to know that there was allegation of accident from his bus. It is admitted in the reply that challan was filed against Kuna Ram, the bus driver of the appellant. 4. The learned Tribunal framed issues and the claimant examined himself as A.W. 1 and produced documentary evidence Ex. 1 to Ex. 16, whereas the appellant produced witness N.A.W. I Kuna Ram. The learned Tribunal decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimant-respondent that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of Kuna Ram causing injuries to the claimant and, while deciding issue Nos. 2 and 3 the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 51,000/- in all; Rs. 3,000/- was awarded for three injuries, Rs. 15,000/- was awarded for fracture, Rs. 3,000/- was awarded for medical expenses, Rs. 5,000/- was awarded for mental and physical suffering, Rs. 25,000/- was awarded for disablement. 5. 2 and 3 the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 51,000/- in all; Rs. 3,000/- was awarded for three injuries, Rs. 15,000/- was awarded for fracture, Rs. 3,000/- was awarded for medical expenses, Rs. 5,000/- was awarded for mental and physical suffering, Rs. 25,000/- was awarded for disablement. 5. The appellant challenged this award dated 1st March, 2000 on the ground that there was no accident and the learned Counsel for the appellant tried to submit that since Bhanwar Singh, the claimant injured was not in a position to see the vehicle and, therefore, it cannot be held that the accident was caused by Bus No. RJ 14/P-2318 of the appellant. 6. A bare perusal of the reply filed by the appellant, it is clear that the reply itself is quite evasive. The facts given in the reply, if read properly, it comes out that something in the reply is hidden otherwise there was no reason to mention that on 20th September, 1993 when Kuna Ram was coming from Udaipur to Banner driving bus No. RJ 14/P-2318, a truck came in front, upon which Kuna Ram took the vehicle in the side. If the evidence of A.W. 1 Bhanwar is seen, Bhanwar Singh clearly stated that bus No. 2318 hit the claimant. In cross-examination he stated that it is wrong to say that the bus did not hit him. Here it is relevant to mention that there is no cross-examination with respect to the examination-in-chief of Bhanwar Singh that bus number was 2318 which caused the accident. The learned Tribunal also found that, after investigation, the police found that Kuna Ram was driving the above bus and filed the challan, therefore, the claimant provided his case. The statement of Kuna Ram is also in the same line in which the reply was filed without explaining reason for narrating the fact of taking the bus in the side when he saw the truck coming in front of the claimant. 7. Therefore, there appears to be no illegality committed by the learned Tribunal in deciding issue No. 1 and, in view of the injuries found on the person of claimant, there appears to be no illegality in awarding compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 8. Therefore, there is no force in this appeal and hence the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******