JUDGMENT 1. - These three appeals have been preferred by the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation against the common judgment dated 13.12.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh in three Accident Claim Cases Nos. 87/2010, 88/2010 and' 115/2010, whereby, the learned Tribunal accepted the claim applications filed by the claimants and awarded them varying amounts of compensation in relation to an accident which took place on 1.1.2010. 2. Facts in brief are that on 1.1.2010 at 5.00 P.M. a roadways bus bearing registration No. RJ 13.P.3344 being driven by its driver Shri Sardul Singh was proceeding from Pilibanga to Dingwala. The three victims Satpal, Baldev and Shanker Ram were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ 13.SC.3315 and were going from Pilibanga to Village Dingawala. It is alleged that when the vehicles reached near the bus stand Dingawala. The bus driver drove the bus rashly and negligently and dashed into the backside of the motorcycle going ahead resulting in the death of all the three persons sitting thereupon. An F.I.R. of the accident was filed against the bus driver and the police after investigation filed a charge-sheet against them. 3. Three separate claim applications were filed by the legal representatives of the three victims who met with unfortunate untimely death in the accident with the roadways bus. 4. The Tribunal framed the usual issues regarding the negligence of the bus driver being the cause of the accident, the entitlement of the claimants to receive compensation, the defences raised by the appellant Corporation and the quantum of the award. All the issues were decided in favour of the claimants and they were held entitled to compensation as mentioned below: Claim Case No. 87/2010:- Rs. 5,20,000/- Claim Case No. 88/2010:- Rs. 4,90,000/- Claim Case No. 115/2010:- Rs. 4,25,000/-. 5. The Tribunal held the appellant's bus driver solely rash and negligent and responsible for causing the accident and accordingly, the responsibility to indemnify the claimants was fixed jointly and severally upon the appellant Corporation and the driver. 6. The appellant Corporation has approached this Court by way of these three appeals being aggrieved of the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the bus driver Sardul Singh drove the bus rashly and negligently and caused the accident and the consequent direction, whereby the appellant Corporation was held responsible to shoulder the burden of the total award. 7. 6. The appellant Corporation has approached this Court by way of these three appeals being aggrieved of the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the bus driver Sardul Singh drove the bus rashly and negligently and caused the accident and the consequent direction, whereby the appellant Corporation was held responsible to shoulder the burden of the total award. 7. Shri Purohit, learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that the deceased persons were acting in the contravention of the mandatory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, when the accident occurred. Three persons were going on the single motorcycle in direct contravention of Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the conditions of the licence. He thus urged that the three deceased themselves acted rashly and negligently while going together on the motorcycle. He drew the attention of the Court to the site inspection plan prepared by the Investigating Officer during investigation of the F.I.R. and the statements of the various witnesses examined before the Tribunal including the bus driver in order to buttress the contention that the driver of the Corporation's bus was not responsible for the accident. He submitted that, in order to proceed to their village, the motorcycle riders cut across the path of the bus from the left side, thereby un-sighting the driver of the bus. He thus contended that the finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding the rash and negligent driving of the Corporation's bus by its driver is contrary to the evidence available on record and deserves to be reversed. 8. Per contra, Shri Vishnoi learned Counsel for the respondent claimants urged that the defence taken by the appellant Corporation remained unsubstantiated and was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. He submitted that the fact regarding the motorcycle having been dashed by the bus from behind is admitted in the evidence of the bus driver. He submitted that as per the site inspection plan, Ex.-4, the bus stopped at a distance of nearly 60 feet from the place of impact. This clearly shows that the bus driver was driving the bus at great speed. The place of collision was just near the bus stand. He thus urged that it is evident that the bus was driven rashly, negligently and speedily by its driver, and regardless of the fact that he was passing through an intersection on the road where a bus stand was located. The place of collision was just near the bus stand. He thus urged that it is evident that the bus was driven rashly, negligently and speedily by its driver, and regardless of the fact that he was passing through an intersection on the road where a bus stand was located. As per him, at such a location, it was essential for the driver to have slowed down the vehicle so as to avoid possibility of any mishap. He further submitted that the police after investigation Filed a charge-sheet against the bus driver for causing the accident by the rash and negligent driving. Thus, he urged that no interference is called for in the Finding recorded by the Tribunal holding the appellant's driver responsible for causing the accident by the rash and negligent driving. 9. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the impugned order and the certified copies of the evidence and documents provided by the appellant's Counsel. The most significant document available on record is the site inspection plan, Ex.-4. The site, inspection plan shows that after the collision took place, the motorcycle and the 3 occupants were dragged along with the bus for almost 60 feet from the place of the impact. The bus was taken off the Road and swerved into the agricultural Field bordering the road. The dead bodies of the 3 occupants of the motorcycle were lying strewn all over the place. The bus ultimately came to a halt at a distance of about 60 feet from the place of the impact. Just opposite to the place of the impact, there is an intersection on the road and a bus stand is also located there. At such a place, it was essential for the bus driver to have driven the bus carefully and slowly so as to avoid the possibility of an accident from the persons coming from the direction of the Village Dingawala. The circumstances as described in the site inspection plan clearly show that the bus driver threw caution to the wind and drove the bus at a breackneck Speed. ' These circumstances are in. themselves sufficient to prove that none other than the appellant's driver was responsible for causing the accident and the consequent death of 3 innocent persons. The circumstances as described in the site inspection plan clearly show that the bus driver threw caution to the wind and drove the bus at a breackneck Speed. ' These circumstances are in. themselves sufficient to prove that none other than the appellant's driver was responsible for causing the accident and the consequent death of 3 innocent persons. The driver Sardul Singh appeared in the witness box on behalf of the appellant. He was specifically asked questions about the site inspection plan and the distance to which the bus traversed, at the impact. He could not explain the circumstances. The argument that the deceased persons were themselves responsible for and contributed in the accident does not convince this Court. Though it is true that the three deceased were travelling on the motorcycle in direct violation of Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act. But as it is a case of the bus hitting the motorcycle from behind, the mere fact that three persons were travelling on a single motorcycle cannot be held to be a contributory factor in the accident. In view of the circumstances which have been narrated above, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal was justified in reaching to a conclusion that the appellant's bus driver was responsible for causing the accident by driving the bus rashly and negligently. The Finding recorded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be unjust, perverse or based on an inappropriate appreciation of evidence so as to call for any interference in this appeal.. 10. Shri Purohit learned Counsel for the appellant made a feeble attempt to challenge the quantum of the compensation awarded to the claimants and urged that the compensation awarded is excessive and deserves to be reduced. The learned Counsel appearing for the claimant's vehemently opposed this argument. 11. I have examined the impugned award on the question of quantum of compensation and Find that the Tribunal applied all the relevant criterion appropriately for assessing the award. The evidence and the averments made in the claim applications were duly weighed and appreciated and, thereafter, the Tribunal recorded its satisfaction for calculating the just compensation to which the claimants were entitled. The evidence and the averments made in the claim applications were duly weighed and appreciated and, thereafter, the Tribunal recorded its satisfaction for calculating the just compensation to which the claimants were entitled. Tested on the touchstone of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments on the question of just compensation, it cannot be said that the view taken by the Tribunal in awarding compensation to the claimants is in any manner questionable so as to call for any interference in these appeals. I have also independently examined the criterion applied by the Tribunal while assessing the compensation awarded to each set of Claimants in the 3 claims and find that the assessment of the individual awards done by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive by any stretch of Imagination.In this view of the matter, the appeals filed by the appellant Corporation are critless. Accordingly, all the appeals fail and are hereby rejected. No cost.Copy Of this judgment be placed in the connected appeals.Appeal dismissed. *******