RAFIQ, J.—Non-claimants have preferred this appeal aggrieved by award dated 19.05.2005 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karauli, in MAC Case No.94/2003, whereby learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.30,000/- to claimants for damaged caused to their vehicle. 2. Briefly stated facts of case are that on 17.1.2003 offending bus of appellant Corporation bearing No.RJ-34-O-0285, which was being driven by Khubi Ram, was coming from Kela Devi and hit Jeep No.RJ-25-C-0853 from behind the back, as a result of which the jeep got damaged. 3. Contention of learned counsel for appellants is that compensation awarded to claimants is excessive, unjust and illegal inasmuch learned Tribunal has failed to consider that it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of appellant's bus driver. At the most it can be said to be a case of contributory negligence. The accident took place due to negligence of driver of jeep. 4. On hearing learned counsel for the appellants and perusing material on record, I am of the view that award of Rs.30,000/- to claimants for the damage caused to their jeep on account of negligence on the part of driver of appellant's bus, cannot be said to be unjust or unreasonable. The claimants have produced repairing bills on record from Exhibit-28 to Exhibit-34, which shows that a total sum of Rs.27,935/- was spent on repair of the jeep. During the period of repair, the jeep remained halted and could not be deployed for transportation. Mechanical inspector report (Exhibit-24) also shows that there was lot of damage to the jeep. On the basis of material available on record, learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that negligence of driver of jeep is not proved. On the contrary, it is proved that accident took place on account of negligence on the part of driver of offending bus as he was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner. AW-4 Prakash and AW-5 Hemraj have clearly stated that the accident took place on account of negligence of driver of offending bus. The driver of the jeep stationed it on one side of the road and he went to answer the natural call. The offending bus came in a very high speed and hit the jeep from back side. AW-4 Prakash and AW-5 Hemraj have clearly stated that the accident took place on account of negligence of driver of offending bus. The driver of the jeep stationed it on one side of the road and he went to answer the natural call. The offending bus came in a very high speed and hit the jeep from back side. Had the bus driver driven it at a moderate speed, it was not possible that bus would have hit the jeep from back side. In these circumstances, learned Tribunal has rightly held the driver of the offending bus responsible for the accident. It cannot be said to be a case of contributory negligence. The award of learned Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not warrant any interference of this court. 5. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Consequent upon dismissal of appeal itself, stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and same is also dismissed.