JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred against award dated 18.05.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand; whereby, the claim petition filed by the appellant Sardar Singh regarding injuries said to have been suffered by him on account of the accident which occurred on 10.02.1995 has been rejected. 2. The facts in brief are that a claim petition was filed by the appellant Sardar Singh before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand inter alia with the averments that on 10.02.1995 when he was going on his Scooter and the Bus belonging to the respondent No.2 which was being driven by respondent No.1 Prabhu Singh reached Negaria, a Truck came from the front which was being crossed and the appellant who was going on Scooter was hit. The Bus was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1. The applicant suffered fracture of the right hand and which has rendered his hand useless. A sum of Rs. 5,99,000/- was claimed as compensation. 3. The claim was resisted by the owner of the Bus Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur and the facts alleged in the claim petition were denied. In special pleas it was stated that on the day of accident the vehicle was being driven under control and in normal speed when a Truck came from the front and the applicant who was riding his Scooter behind the Truck tried to over take the Truck and on seeing the Bus he got confused and tried to get back to his side and struck the Truck and fell down. The Bus driver to save the appellant took the vehicle into the Kacha road and struck the hillock (Magri). 4. The Claims Tribunal framed as many as four issues. On behalf of the appellant two witnesses were produced and 31 documents were got exhibited. No evidence was produced by the respondents. 5. The Bus driver to save the appellant took the vehicle into the Kacha road and struck the hillock (Magri). 4. The Claims Tribunal framed as many as four issues. On behalf of the appellant two witnesses were produced and 31 documents were got exhibited. No evidence was produced by the respondents. 5. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that it appears quite unnatural that the accident has happened on account of rash and negligent driving of the Bus and it appears from the circumstances that the appellant was trying to over take the Truck and when saw the Bus coming from the opposite direction tried to save himself and struck the Puliya and, as such, there is no question of any rash and negligent driving by the Bus driver and decided the issue relating to rash and negligent driving against the appellant and consequently dismissed the claim petition. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of his claim, the injured appellant has preferred this appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 8. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the finding on rash and negligent driving recorded by the learned Tribunal was ex facie incorrect and is based on conjecture and surmises. The First Information Report lodged by the Conductor of the Bus was totally ignored wherein he has specifically said that the Bus was being driven rashly and negligently by the Bus Driver. It was further contended that no evidence was produced by the respondents and even the Bus driver did not enter the witness box and, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to reach the conclusion which it has arrived, on the issue relating to the rash and negligent driving. Ultimately, it was submitted that the said finding deserves to be set aside and in place of remanding back the case for determination of compensation, the same should be determined by this Court only. 9. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents strenuously submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on the issue of rash and negligent driving does not require any interference by this Court as the finding was quite elaborate and nothing has been brought out in the statements etc. to warrant interference. 9. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents strenuously submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on the issue of rash and negligent driving does not require any interference by this Court as the finding was quite elaborate and nothing has been brought out in the statements etc. to warrant interference. Ultimately, it was prayed that the order passed by the learned Tribunal be upheld. 10. I have considered the arguments and gone through the record of the case. 11. The present is a case full of contradiction in pleadings and oral & documentary evidence and, therefore, it is appropriate to quote the relevant portions from the pleadings itself. The claimant in para 26 (A) of the claim petition has averred as under:- " 26 ( v ) ;g fd nq?kZVuk fnukad 10-2-1995 ds yxHkx 4-15 ih0,e0 ij ukFk}kjk ls mn;iqj dh vksj cl uEcj vkj0ts0 14 oh 2295 ftldks foi{kh la[;k 1 pkyd rhoz xfr o ykijokgh ls cl pyk jgk Fkk fd us'kuy gkbZos uEcj 8 ij usxfM+;k uyk ds ikl <+yku esa igqaph fd lkeus ls ,d V~d vk;k ftldk dzksl dj jgs Fks fd izkFkhZ tks LdwVj ij tk jgk Fkk mlds VDdj ekj nh ftlls izkFkhZ dk cka;k gkFk (Right hand) VwV x;k] rFkk izkFkhZ dk gkFk ges'k ges'kk ds fy, csdkj gks x;kA foi{kh la[;k 2 tks cl ekfyd gS] rFkk foi{kh la[;k 1 tks pkyd gS lHkh {kfriwfrZ gsrq la;qDr :i ls o i`Fkd&i`Fkd :i ls mRrjnk;h gSaA " 12. The said averment is very specific, wherein, the appellant has averred that the Truck came from the front which was being crossed and the appellant who was riding Scooter was struck.13. The said averment is very specific, wherein, the appellant has averred that the Truck came from the front which was being crossed and the appellant who was riding Scooter was struck.13. On the other hand, in the written statement of the respondent No.2, the averments made in para 26 have been denied and in the additional pleas it has been averred as under:- " 1- ;g fd nq?kZVuk ds fnu foi{kh la[;k 1 vius okgu dks fu;af=r ,oa larqfyr xfr ls pykrk gqvk ys tk jgk Fkk fd usxfM+;k xzke ds lehi lkeus ls ,d V~d vk;k ,oa mlds ihNs izkFkhZ LdwVj ysdj ml V~d dks vksoj Vsd djus yxk] rHkh lkeus ls cl dks ns[kdj izkFkhZ gM+cM+k x;k ,oa okil viuh lkbZM esa tkus ds fy, eqM+k vkSj V~d ds fiNys fgLls ls VDdjk dj ogh fxj x;k] foi{kh la[;k ,d us mDr izkFkhZ dks cpkus ds fy, xkM+h dks dPps esa mrkj nh] ftlls cl igkM+h ls Vdjk xbZA mDr nq?kZVuk izkFkhZ dh Lo;a dh ykijokgh ,oa mis{kk iw.kZ LdwVj pykus ls dkfjr gqbZ gS] rFkk og foi{khx.k dh cl ls ugha Vdjk;k] fdUrq V~d ls Vdjk x;k] mDr V~d nq?kZVuk ds i'pkr~ ekSds ij :dh jgh FkhA " 14. The stand of the respondent No.2 is that the appellant was trying to over take the Truck and he got confused on seeing the Bus coming from opposite side and on trying to get back to his side struck the Truck and fell down. The Driver of the Bus tried to save the appellant, which resulted in the Bus going down into kacha road and struck the hillock.15. Much reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellant on the First Information Report lodged by the Conductor of the Bus, wherein, he has stated that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Bus driver. Much reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellant on the First Information Report lodged by the Conductor of the Bus, wherein, he has stated that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Bus driver. However, it would be appropriate to quote the contents of the FIR itself which reads as under:- " bl le; izkFkhZ Jh vHk; flag iq= Jh fc'ku flag th jkBkSM+ mez 46 o"kZ is'kk ifjpkyd cl uEcj RJ-14/P-2294 jkt0 jkT; iFk ifjogu HkhyokM+k vkxkj R/o lkaofj;k th ds eafnj ds ikl vktkn uxj] HkhyokM+k ih0,l0 izrki uxj us ceqdke usxfM+;k tckuh bfryk nh fd vkt fnukad 10-2-1995 dks eSa o M~kbZoj Jh izHkq flag jktiwr fuoklh Qkdksfy;k ih0,l0 djsM+k nksuksa jksMost cl uEcj RJ-14/P-2295 esa lokfj;k Hkjdj 12-30 ih0,e0 ij HkhyokM+k ls mn;iqj ds fy, jokuk gq;sA cl dks M~kbZoj izHkq flag pyk jgk FkkA djhc 4-15 ih0,e0 ij us'kuy gkbZos jksM+ uEcj 8 usxfM+;k uyk ds ikl <+yku esa igaqps fd lkeus ls ,d V~d vk;k ftldks dzksl dj gh jgs Fks fd V~d ds ihNs ,d LdwVj ,dne gekjh cl ds lkeus vk x;kA M~kbZoj izHkq flag us LdwVj dks cpkus ds fy, cl dks lM+d ls lkbM esa mrkjh ftlls cl dk larqyu fcxM+ x;k o M~kbZoj cl dks dkcw ugha dj ldk ftlls cl jksM+ ds ck;ha lkbZM esa igkM+h ls Vdjk xbZ ftlls cl fd ck;ha lkbZM f[kM+dh dh rjQ cSBs iSalsatjksa ds pksVsa vkbZ rFkk jksM+ost dh ck;ha rjQ fd cksMh] f[kM+dh o f'k'ks VwV x;s gSaA LdwVj ls fxjus okys dks ukFk}kjk vLirky ,oa jksMost esa cSBh lokjh ftuds pksVsa vkbZ Fkh mudks t0gks0 mn;iqj bZykt ds fy, Hksts x;s gSa ;g ,DlhMsaV M~kbZoj }kjk cl dks rst o xQyr ykijokgh ls pykus ls gqvk gSaA lks dk;Zokgh Qjekos " 16. The claimant in his evidence stated that he was driving behind the Truck and the bus driver gave a cut to the Truck and took the side and struck him. In the cross-examination he has denied that he was trying to over take the Truck and he struck the Truck. However, he has admitted that police has filed challan against him.17. In the statement of AW-2 Bhagwan Lal, who is said to be a passenger in the Bus has stated that the Bus struck the scooter and was on his side. However, he has admitted that police has filed challan against him.17. In the statement of AW-2 Bhagwan Lal, who is said to be a passenger in the Bus has stated that the Bus struck the scooter and was on his side. However, in the cross-examination he has stated that he was sitting three seats behind the driver of the Bus and after accident he came to know that Sardar Singh has been injured.18. A bare analysis of the averments made in the claim petition, the reply filed by the respondent No.2, the First Information Report lodged by the conductor of the Bus (heavily relied on by the counsel for the claimant) and the statements of the claimant and Bhagwan Lal do not lead to the conclusion that the accident, whereby, the claimant fell down from his scooter and got the injuries as claimed by him was as a result of any rash and negligent driving by the Bus driver. Once the FIR lodged by the conductor is read as a whole, the same leads to a conclusion that may be the Bus was being driven on a high speed, but it nowhere brings out this fact that the Bus struck the Scooter. The averments in the FIR relating to the fact that a Scooter came in front of the Bus and the driver trying to save the Scooter took the Bus to the side which resulted in imbalance of the Bus and the same struck the hillock cannot be ignored. The rashness and negligence of the driver as alleged in the FIR has to be seen only in the context that the Bus struck the hillock on account of the said rashness. The same cannot be read in the context that it had anything to do with the injury to the claimant-appellant. The averments made in the claim petition are very sketchy and statement of claimant do not lead anywhere. Further, any FIR on part of the claimant on account of the said accident is also conspicuously absent.19. The theory by the claimant that the Bus after crossing the Truck coming from the opposite side gave a cut and struck him when he was going behind the Truck on face of it appears to be quite improbable as rightly held by the Claims Tribunal.20. The theory by the claimant that the Bus after crossing the Truck coming from the opposite side gave a cut and struck him when he was going behind the Truck on face of it appears to be quite improbable as rightly held by the Claims Tribunal.20. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal on issue No.1 relating to the rash and negligent driving by the Bus driver does not call for any interference and the same is upheld.21. Consequently, the claimant is not entitled to any relief and the appeal filed by him deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.Appeal dismissed. *******