ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. Appellant-Corporation has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') to assail impugned judgment and award dated 7th of September, 2000, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaur (for short, 'learned Tribunal'), whereby learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition of appellant under Section 166 of the Act for compensation in respect of damage to property. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this appeal are that on 21st of March, 1994, Corporation bus bearing No. RJ-14-P-1745, which was lent to Indian Railways on contract, met with an accident on Jodhpur Nagaur route beyond 8 kms from Khinvsar as the Corporation bus collided with truck No. RNQ 7945. In the accident, one Arun Joshi serving as TTE in the Railways suffered serious injuries and eventually succumbed to death and the Corporation bus was also damaged. The legal heirs and dependents of Arun Joshi laid a claim petition before learned Tribunal. The appellant Corporation also laid a compensation claim for property damage to the tune of Rs.1,09,258/-. The learned Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and award, dismissed the claim petition of the Corporation. As a matter of fact, the averments contained in the claim petition regarding rash and negligent driving of truck, which was insured with third respondent-insurance company, was seriously contested by the owner of bus. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings, framed five issues for determination, and thereafter, proceeded to decide issue No.1 & 3 conjointly. Regarding cause of accident and alleged contributory negligence of both the vehicles, upon appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal recorded its finding that accident occurred due to negligence of drivers of both the vehicles and apportioned negligence on the part of drivers of both the vehicles equally. While adverting to issue No.2, regarding the amount of compensation claimed by the appellant Corporation, the learned Tribunal has found that the documentary and oral evidence furnished by Corporation is insufficient to substantiate the claim. The learned Tribunal has also not found the evidence of three witnesses, who appeared on behalf of appellant, of sterling worth so as to award any compensation. The decision on issue No.2 against the appellant, eventually, entailed dismissal of the claim of appellant-Corporation. 3. The learned Tribunal has also not found the evidence of three witnesses, who appeared on behalf of appellant, of sterling worth so as to award any compensation. The decision on issue No.2 against the appellant, eventually, entailed dismissal of the claim of appellant-Corporation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that learned Tribunal has seriously erred in appreciation of documentary and oral evidence tendered by appellant Corporation. It is submitted by learned counsel that although umpteen material was available on record coupled with oral evidence of three witnesses appeared on behalf of appellant-Corporation, yet the learned Tribunal has not examined the said evidence appropriately. Learned counsel submits that while discarding evidence of the appellant, learned Tribunal has not recorded cogent reasons. Learned counsel Mr. Purohit would contend that findings and conclusions of the learned Tribunal on issue No.2 are based on mere ipse dixit of learned Tribunal while eschewing material evidence available on record and therefore the findings, as such, are not only perverse but inconsistent and contradictory. 4. Learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2-owner of the truck, has stoutly defended the findings of learned Tribunal on issue No.2. it is urged by learned counsel that said findings are based on sound appreciation of the evidence which are not liable to be interfered with. 5. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for insurance company, would contend that as per the terms of the insurance policy, liability of the insurance company for property damages is confined to Rs.6,000/- only. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment & award and thoroughly scanned the record of the case. 7. At the outset, it may be observed that so far as findings and conclusions on issue No.1 & 3 are concerned, this Court while deciding S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 631/2000 (Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Indu Joshi & Ors.) on 6th of June, 2017 has upheld the said findings, therefore, same have attained finality and are not liable to be disturbed in this appeal. Now, adverting to finding on issue No.2, suffice it to observe that although learned Tribunal has discussed the evidence threadbare, but then no cogent reasons are forthcoming for the said finding as to how and in what manner learned Tribunal has disbelieved the statements of three witnesses appeared on behalf of the appellant. Now, adverting to finding on issue No.2, suffice it to observe that although learned Tribunal has discussed the evidence threadbare, but then no cogent reasons are forthcoming for the said finding as to how and in what manner learned Tribunal has disbelieved the statements of three witnesses appeared on behalf of the appellant. Indisputably, Corporation buses are repaired in their own workshops and in the repairing process replacement of requisite parts are made available in the workshop itself for which no separate bill is issued. The cost of damaged parts replaced during repairing is clearly evident from the requisite documents placed on record with the claim petition. Although, learned Tribunal has considered those documents but has in a very cavalier manner disbelieved the same for the purpose of granting compensation to the appellant. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court the finding of the learned Tribunal on issue No.2 is per se laconic and perverse which cannot be sustained. 8. In view thereof, while upholding findings on issue Nos.1 & 3, the finding and conclusions recorded by learned Tribunal on issue No.2 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for deciding issue No.2 afresh strictly in accordance with law. 9. As the claim petition was filed way back in the year 1994, the learned Tribunal is expected to decide the matter de novo/afresh, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of record of the case. The record of the case be sent back to learned Tribunal forthwith.