JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 18.11.2008 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner in Motor Accident Claim Case No.23/2004, whereby, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,39,000/- to the claimant-respondents who are the legal heirs of the deceased Tej Pratap Singh as compensation. The appellant - Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation challenged the validity of the award as well as the quantum of the amount awarded to the claimant-respondents by the impugned judgment. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accident in question took place when a bus bearing registration No.RJ-14-P-2906 belonging to the appellant Corporation being driven by Chhagan Lal collided with a trailer bearing registration No.PB-32-B-2410 resulting into the death of Tej Pratap Singh. He vehemently contended that it is the driver of the trailer in question who drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and thereby caused the accident. He submitted that it is a case of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the trailer and the appellant Corporation has wrongly been made responsible to satisfy the award. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant respondents, driver and owner of the trailer in question stressed that the learned Tribunal has duly appreciated the evidence available on the record and has rightly held that the bus driver drove the bus rashly and negligently and, therefore, he was responsible for the accident in question. It is thus prayed that there is no reason to interfere in the well reasoned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal as well as the record of the case. 5. The learned Tribunal at internal page No.17 of its judgment has dealt with the Issue No.1 regarding responsibility of the accident in question. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal as well as the record of the case. 5. The learned Tribunal at internal page No.17 of its judgment has dealt with the Issue No.1 regarding responsibility of the accident in question. The Issue No.1 is reproduced here in below:- "Whether on 11.12.2003, at about 9.45 AM, Chhagan Lal (non-petitioner No.1), the driver of the bus bearing registration No.RJ-14-P-2906 belonging to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation which was going from Bikaner to Fazilka, near Dayanand Public School after Bichhwal has drove the same rashly and negligently and whilst overtaking an another truck had gone into a wrong direction and hit the truck bearing registration No.PB-32-B-2410 coming from the opposite side, whereby, simple and grievous injuries were caused to the passengers sitting in the bus namely Tej Pratap Singh, Om Prakash, Prahlad Singh, Dhanney Singh and Jagdish Prasad and as a result of these injuries, Tej Pratap Singh and Prahlad Singh expired?" 6. This issue was dealt with by the learned Tribunal in Paras Nos.15, 16 and 17 of its judgment. The learned Tribunal has considered the evidence of the bus driver Chhagan Lal (NAW-1). The bus driver stated that on 11.12.2003 i.e. on the date of the accident, he was driving the bus in question and was proceeding from Bikaner to Fazilka. At about 10 to 10.15 in the morning, the condition was heavily foggy. A truck was going in front of his bus. The truck driver suddenly applied the brakes, on which, he was forced to overtake the same. From the opposite side, a trailer was coming without any lights etc., on this and in order to avoid a collision, he drove the bus to the wrong side of the road, but, could not succeed. Ultimately, the trailer banged into the bus causing injuries to number of passengers. In the cross examination, the bus driver admitted that the police held him responsible for the accident and filed a charge sheet against him. The bus driver also admitted that he did not give any information to his superior officers or to the police that a false case of accident has been foisted against him. He failed to give the number of the truck which suddenly applied the brakes forcing him to leave the lane resulting into the accident. The bus driver also admitted that he did not give any information to his superior officers or to the police that a false case of accident has been foisted against him. He failed to give the number of the truck which suddenly applied the brakes forcing him to leave the lane resulting into the accident. The learned Tribunal in Para No.15 of its judgment concluded that the bus driver tried to overtake the vehicle going ahead of him without due caution and recklessly and then drove the bus rashly and negligently resulting into a collision with the trailer coming from the opposite direction. 7. On going through the testimony of the driver, it is revealed that he himself stated that when the driver of the truck which was going ahead of him suddenly applied the brakes, he overtook the same. At that point of time, the bus driver Chhagan Lal was required to be more cautious and should have stopped the bus immediately. Significantly enough, the conditions were foggy, therefore, obviously the bus must have been moving at a very slow pace as visibility was low. It appears that the bus driver without ascertaining and assessing the relative position of the opposite vehicle tried to overtake the truck going ahead of him resulting into the accident. 8. I have also perused the site plan (Exhibit/3) available on the record. A bare perusal of the site plan shows that the trailer with which the appellant's bus collided was on the extreme left side of the road to be seen from the direction it was coming. The road is more than 24 feet wide. The circumstances as described in the site plan clearly show that the bus driver drove the bus rashly and negligently. Thus, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the trailer driver Kulveer Singh cannot be accepted on the face of the record. 9. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal regarding the appellant's bus driver having driven the vehicle in question rashly and negligently cannot be said to illegal, perverse or contrary to the material available on the record of the case. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has not made any significant contention regarding the quantum of the claim awarded to the claimants. 11. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has not made any significant contention regarding the quantum of the claim awarded to the claimants. 11. I have also examined the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal and of the view that the amount awarded to the claimant-respondents by the impugned judgment and award is not excessive or unreasonable.Resultantly, the appeal as well as the stay petition being devoid of any force are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Record be sent back forthwith.Appeal dismissed. *******