JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal is preferred by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (in short 'Corporation') against the judgment and award dated 18.8.1999 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in MAC No.148/1990 whereby the learned Tribunal accepted the claim petition filed by the respondent claimant Anil Kumar and granted him compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/-. Whilst accepting the award for the aforesaid amount on the basis of the contributory negligence of the two drivers, the liability of the appellant corporation was fixed at 30% whereas 70% liability was attributed to the truck owner and the insurance company. Accordingly, the award was apportioned in a ratio of 30% against the RSRTC and 70% against the insurance company of the truck i.e. the respondent No.5 herein. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent claimant Anil Kumar was travelling in the appellant's bus bearing registration No.RNP-92 on 26.9.1989 from Udaipur to Chittorgarh. The bus collided with a truck bearing registration No.CII-7440 resulting into the claimant respondent receiving numerous injuries. The claimant respondent filed the claim petition, which was allowed fixing the liability of the appellant corporation and the Insurance Company in the above ratio by the impugned judgment and award. The Corporation has approached this Court by way of the instant appeal challenging the said award. 3. The claim was filed against the Corporation as well as the owner, driver and insurer of the truck in question. The corporation took a defence that the driver of the truck drove the truck rashly and negligently causing the accident and thus, the responsibility of satisfying the claim should not have been fixed on the corporation at all. The learned Tribunal held that the driver of the bus was negligent to the extent of 30% while driving the bus and accordingly, the liability was fixed on the corporation to satisfy the claim. Hence, this appeal. 4. Shri L.K. Purohit learned counsel appearing for the corporation contended that it was the truck driver, who drove the truck rashly and negligently resulting into the accident and therefore, the learned Tribunal was not justified in fixing the liability of 30% of the award on the corporation. Hence, this appeal. 4. Shri L.K. Purohit learned counsel appearing for the corporation contended that it was the truck driver, who drove the truck rashly and negligently resulting into the accident and therefore, the learned Tribunal was not justified in fixing the liability of 30% of the award on the corporation. He contended that the driver of the bus was examined on behalf of the insurance company and he specifically deposed that it was the truck driver who under the influence of liquor, drove the truck rashly and negligently causing the accident. Learned counsel thus, submitted that the judgment and award deserves to be modified and now the responsibility to satisfy the award deserves to be shifted totally on to the owner and insurance company of the truck in question. 5. Shri L.D. Khatri learned counsel appearing for the insurance company respondent No.5 contended that it is amply proved from the evidence available on record that the bus driver Noor Mohd. drove the bus rashly and negligently causing the accident. He submitted that the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer during investigation shows that the bus was being driven on the extreme right side of the road and there, it collided with the truck, which was coming from the opposite direction and was being driven on the extreme left side of the road i.e. its correct side. He submitted that a bare perusal of the site plan would amply prove the fact that the bus driver was driving the bus rashly and negligently. He, therefore, uged that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and award. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the record. 7. A perusal of the record shows that numerous documents are missing from the same. In view of the aforesaid fact, this Court took assistance from Shri L.D. Khatri and perused the site plan available in his file for appreciating the arguments advanced before this Court. The photostat copy of the site memo prepared by the Investigating Officer during the investigation of the criminal case was kept on the record of the appeal. The site plan shows that the accident took place almost on the edge of the road. The photostat copy of the site memo prepared by the Investigating Officer during the investigation of the criminal case was kept on the record of the appeal. The site plan shows that the accident took place almost on the edge of the road. The bus driver drove the bus to the extreme right of the road, collided with the truck and then the bus plummeted to the left side of the road and came to a stop on the gravel below the road side. As per the written statement filed by the appellant corporation, the stand taken was that the truck driver collided the truck against the bus and thereafter, driver took the bus on the extreme left side of the road for saving the bus and the passengers from graver harm. On going through the testimony of bus driver NAW1 Noor Mohd., it is evident that he deposed that after the truck collided with the bus, it overturned and crashed on the edge of the road. Obviously, this statement is totally contrary to the pleading of the corporation in its written statement. A charge-sheet for rash and negligent driving was filed against the driver of the bus after investigation of the FIR registered for the accident. The marks of the impact after the accident as per the site plan are on the extreme right hand side of the road looked at from the side, the bus was being driven. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has already taken an undue liberal view favouring the appellant corporation regarding the percentage of its liability to satisfy the claim. The corporation has been encumbered with only 30% of the liability and 70% liability has been fixed on the insurance company of the truck, whereas the fact remains that it is principally the driver of the appellant corporation's bus, who was responsible for the accident in question.Thus, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby rejected.Appeal dismissed. *******