JUDGMENT : Rameshwar Vyas, J. 1. The instant review petition has been preferred by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (afterwards referred to as 'RSRTC') - petitioner (respondent No. 2 in the appeal) seeking recalling of the judgment dated 01.10.2020 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 27/2005, whereby, this Court while partly allowing the appeal has enhanced the amount of compensation, to be paid by the RSRTC without any deduction towards contributory negligence. 2. The case of the review petitioner is that the learned Tribunal while allowing the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act had held the RSRTC liable for payment of compensation to the extent of 70% only on account of finding of contributory negligence on the part of deceased in the accident. The said finding regarding contributory negligence has not been reversed/dealt with in the judgment dated 01.10.2020. However, inadvertently by error or mistake the enhanced amount of compensation was ordered to be paid by the RSRTC. 3. In the present review petition, the challenge is made to only that part of the judgment impugned, which fastened 100% liability for payment of compensation on the RSRTC. 4. The above factual position is not disputed by learned counsel for the non-petitioner. 5. I have considered the contentions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From the perusal of record, it is revealed that while allowing the claim petition though the learned Tribunal has assessed the loss in terms of money to the tune of Rs. 2,18,400/- yet deducted 30% of the above amount on account of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,62,000/- only to be paid by the RSRTC. 7. This Court while partly allowing the appeal enhanced the compensation amount by Rs. 3,87,520/-, however, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the RSRTC is liable to pay the compensation only to the extent of 70% has escaped from the notice of this Court. 8. From perusal of the record, it is also revealed that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal regarding contributory negligence of the deceased in the accident has not been dealt with by this Court while deciding the appeal, though the said issue has been raised in the appeal but not argued during the hearing of the appeal. 9. 8. From perusal of the record, it is also revealed that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal regarding contributory negligence of the deceased in the accident has not been dealt with by this Court while deciding the appeal, though the said issue has been raised in the appeal but not argued during the hearing of the appeal. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court without setting aside the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal on the issue of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the RSRTC cannot be made liable to pay the whole compensation amount in the appeal. 10. In the above circumstances, the judgment impugned is liable to be recalled to the extent that it does not deal with the issue regarding deduction of money from the amount of compensation assessed, towards contributory negligence. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties arguments have been heard on the point of contributory negligence. 11. It is revealed from the record that no eye witness of the accident was produced on behalf of the claimants, however, RSRTC produced the driver of the offending vehicle Kishan Lal to controvert the claimants' case. Kishan Lal totally denied the accident itself. However, the said version of Kishan Lal was not found reliable by the learned Tribunal. In the considered opinion of this Court, Kishan Lal was the best witness, who could narrate the correct circumstances, in which, accident took place, but he chose not to disclose the true version of the incident. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal was not correct in attributing the contributory negligence to the deceased on the basis of site plan only. It is true that as per the site plan deceased was not on the left side of the road and the accident took place 10 ft. away from the side-end of the road but in the opinion of this Court, it is the duty of the Driver to drive the heavy vehicle carefully and save the cycle rider. As stated earlier the Bus driver was the only person who could explain the correct circumstances, under which, accident took place. It is not the case of the RSRTC that the deceased came suddenly on the road. 12. As stated earlier the Bus driver was the only person who could explain the correct circumstances, under which, accident took place. It is not the case of the RSRTC that the deceased came suddenly on the road. 12. In the above factual position this Court is not in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal regarding contributory negligence of the deceased in the accident. Hence, the finding of learned Tribunal regarding contributory negligence of the deceased is set aside and the RSRTC is held liable to pay 100% of the amount of loss assessed in terms of money by this Court as Rs. 3,87,520/- instead of Rs. 1,62,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal to the claimants. The enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 2,25,520/- shall be deposited by the RSRTC within a period of one month from the date of this judgment with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing claim petition i.e. 10.07.2003 till the date of actual payment. The review petition is disposed of accordingly.