JUDGMENT Prakash Gupta, J. - These two appeals, one by RSRTC and another by Smt. Santosh Devi & others, have been filed against the judgment & award dated 12.01.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Case No.229/2014, by which a sum of Rs. 9,50,704/- has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants on account of death of Hazari Lal. 2. Whereas appellant in Civil Misc. Appeal No.2148/2018 has prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment, the appellants in Civil Misc. Appeal No.2941/2018 have prayed for enhancement of the award amount, as prayed in the claim petition. 3. Relevant facts necessary for disposal of the instant appeals are that claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 61,05,000/-on account of death of Hazari Lal. It was stated in the claim petition that on 30.04.2014 at about 9.00 pm when the deceased was going from Janana Hospital to his village on his motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ-23-SJ-8145 and reached at Bansur Road, while crossing the road a roadways bus No. RJ-32-PA-1468 which was being driven rashly and negligently by non-claimant No.2, hit the motorcycle due to which he suffered serious injuries and died. 4. The non-claimants filed their reply to the claim petition denying the averments made therein and submitted that the accident took place due to negligence of the deceased himself and therefore, the claim petition may be dismissed. 5. Learned Tribunal after hearing the parties and going through the material available on the record, vide its impugned judgment dated 12.01.2018, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 9,50,704/- as compensation in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 19.05.2014 till realisation of the amount. 6. Submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation is that while deciding issue No.1, learned Tribunal observed that Smt. Santosh Devi (AW-1) admitted in her cross examination that she was not present at the place of incident and does not know due to whose negligence the accident occurred. Further, Musha Ram(AW-3) who lodged the FIR also did not mention in the FIR that he witnessed the incident. Further, Musha Ram(AW-3) who lodged the FIR also did not mention in the FIR that he witnessed the incident. The Tribunal held that there was no eye witness to the incident but despite this, it was held that respondent No.5 was responsible for causing the alleged accident. He further submits that on the basis of Exhibit-7 (notice under section 134 of M.V. Act), Exhibit-17 (authority letter of driver) and Exhibit-19 (duty chart), the Tribunal held that the vehicle in question was being driven by Sheesh Ram Gurjar but it does not mean that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver due to which the accident occurred. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the finding of the Tribunal holding the income of the deceased to be only Rs. 4914/- per month is erroneous as he was earning Rs. 15000/- per month by doing agriculture work and masonry work. Further it is submitted that a meager amount has been awarded towards loss of love and affection and personal expenses have also been wrongly considered as /rd of the income instead of 1 Ath of the income. He has therefore prayed that the award amount may be enhanced, as claimed in the petition. 8. I have heard rival submissions of both the parties and have also gone through the impugned judgment so also the relevant record. 9. It is an admitted fact that deceased Hazari Lal while returning to his village on motorcycle met with an accident and died. Learned Tribunal after hearing the parties framed as many as five issues and the issues No.1 was to the effect that "Whether the non-applicant No.2 on 30.04.2014 at about 9.00 pm. while driving the bus RJ-32-PA-1468 rashly and negligently caused the accident at Bansur Road, Kotputli which resulted in death of Hazari Lal?" 10. Upon careful perusal of the findings given by the Tribunal on issue Nos.1 and 2, it is apparent that Tribunal has not given any finding on the issue of negligence of the driver of the bus. There is no finding that the vehicle in question was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Sheesh Ram due to which the accident occurred in which Hazari Lal died. There is no finding that the vehicle in question was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Sheesh Ram due to which the accident occurred in which Hazari Lal died. Only some documents i.e. Exhibit-7, 17 and 19 have been discussed wherein it was only mentioned that the vehicle in question was being driven by Sheesh Ram on a particular route on the said date but there is no finding as to whether Sheesh Ram, the driver was driving the bus rashly and negligently due to which the accident occurred. In absence of such a finding, the liability of the appellant RSRTC to pay compensation for the tortious act of its driver cannot be maintained. 11. In these circumstances, since there is no specific finding of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal liable to be quashed and set aside. 12. Consequently, the impugned judgment and award dated 12.01.2018 passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh after giving the opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Needless to say that the tribunal is required to give a specific finding on the issue of negligence. 13. Both the parties are directed to remain present before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli, District Jaipur on 14.11.2018. 14. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.