JUDGMENT : 1. The present First Appeal is filed by the appellant – Gujarat State road Transport Corporation challenging the judgment and award dated 26.05.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) and 10th (Adhoc) Additional District Judge, Bhuj - Kuchchh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), in M.A.C.P. No.723 of 1998, whereby, the Tribunal has held and directed the original opponent No.2 – S.T. Corporation to pay the compensation of Rs.4,98,800/- to the original claimant. 2. The brief facts leading to the present First Appeal are that, on 01.11.1997, the respondent No.1 – original claimant, along with his friends, was going to the house of his relatives. They were going by foot and were walking on left hand side of the road in moderate speed and with full care. When they reached near Police Ground, J.T. Road, at that time, the S.T. Bus bearing registration No.GJ-01-Z-994, which was drive by respondent No.2 herein, came with full speed and in negligent manner and dashed with the respondent No.1. As a result, the respondent No.1 had sustained serious injuries. He was shifted to Mandvi Hospital and thereafter, he was shifted at Bhuj G.K. General Hospital for further treatment. Hence, the respondent No.1 – original claimant filed M.A.C.P. No.723 of 1998 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after evaluating the pleadings and evidence tendered by the parties, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.4,98,800/-. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the appellant – S.T. Corporation has filed the present First Appeal before this Court. 4. Heard Mrs.Vasavdatta Bhatt, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – S.T. Corporation and Mr.Hiren Modi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 – original claimant. 5. Mrs.Bhatt, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the learned Tribunal has not considered the FIR at Exh.-52 and panchnama at Exh.-53. She submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred sole negligency to the GSRTC and also erred in appreciating the written statement filed by the GSRTC at Exh.- 16, wherein, the appellant has narrated how the incident had occurred. She submitted that the respondent No.1 – original claimant has deposed in the Government Hospital while taking treatment that the accident occurred due to his negligency, there is no negligency on the part of the driver of the S.T. Bus. She submitted that the respondent No.1 – original claimant has deposed in the Government Hospital while taking treatment that the accident occurred due to his negligency, there is no negligency on the part of the driver of the S.T. Bus. She further submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the contentions raised by the S.T. Corporation before the Tribunal, and hence, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is erroneous and illegal and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the present Appeal may be allowed. 6. Per contra, Mr.Modi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 – original claimant, submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error while passing the impugned award. Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal is not having any infirmity and no interference is required to be called for and, therefore, the present appeal may be dismissed. 7. I have considered the averments made in the appeal, submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the sides and considered the facts of the case and perused the record and proceedings. It is the case of the appellant before this Court that, on the eve of Diwali, while some persons were igniting fire crackers on the road due to which people were running here and there. Under such circumstance, the injured claimant also ran and dashed with the door of the S.T. Bus, hence, he sustained injuries due to his negligency and therefore, neither the bus driver of the S.T. bus was liable for the alleged accident nor the S.T. Corporation is liable to pay any compensation as they are challenging the liability. They have also filed their written statement before the Tribunal and raised the contention. At Exh.-16 is the written statement, wherein, they have contended that the S.T. corporation is not liable and the respondent No.1 – original claimant is not entitled to any compensation from the S.T. Corporation. For that the Tribunal had also framed issues below Exh.-20, which are as under : (1) Whether the petitioner proves that he/she sustained injuries in a vehicular accident due to rash and/or negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If yes, which amount from whom? (3) What Award? Findings to the above issues are as under : (1) In affirmative. (2) Partly in affirmative. (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If yes, which amount from whom? (3) What Award? Findings to the above issues are as under : (1) In affirmative. (2) Partly in affirmative. (3) As per final order. 7.1 The Tribunal has also referred to and relied upon the following oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the original claimant before it : Oral Evidence: Sr. No. Documents Exh. 1 An affidavit of applicant 51 Documentary Evidence: Sr. No. Documents Exh. Marks 1 True Copy of F.I.R. 52 2 True Copy of place of occurrence panchnama 53 3 Copy of Identity Panchnama 54 4 True Copy of M.L.C. Certificate issued by Mandvi Govt. Hospital 55 5 Original Discahrge Card issued by G.K. General Hospital, Bhuj 56 6 Copy of certificate issued by Shushrusha Citizen Co.Opp. Hospital, Mumbai 57 7 Original Discharge Card issued by Indo America Center, Mumbai 58 8 Original Discharge Card of Shushrusha Citizen Co.Opp. Hospital, Mumbai 59 9 Original Discharge Card of Shushrusha Citizen Co.Opp. Hospital, Mumbai 60 10 Original Discharge Card of Shushrusha Citizen Co.Opp. Hospital, Mumbai 61 11 Original Discharge Card of Shushrusha Citizen Co.Opp. Hospital, Mumbai 62 12 Original Medical Bills worth Rs.3,38,000/- 63 13 Original Flight Ticket 64 14 Original Certificate regarding income issued by Kagdi Khetshi Devji 65 15 Original Certificate regarding income 66 15 Copy of photographs – 3 67 16 Copy of certificate taken by applicant in his career 68 17 Original Disability Certificate issued by Dr.Hotchandani Orthopedic Hospital, Gandhidham 71 7.2 After considering the arguments advanced by all the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion and held liable the S.T. Corporation and awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.4,98,800/- in favour of the original claimant – respondent No.1 herein. It is the case of the appellant that the liability held by the Tribunal is erroneous and while passing the impugned award the Tribunal has committed error and therefore, the appellant is before this Court by way of filing present appeal. The controversy involved in the present appeal is very narrow in compass that whether the Tribunal has rightly held the liability on the part of the S.T. Corporation or not. The controversy involved in the present appeal is very narrow in compass that whether the Tribunal has rightly held the liability on the part of the S.T. Corporation or not. For that the Tribunal has discussed the evidence in detail in paragraph 6.5 of the impugned award, wherein, the Tribunal has referred to and relied upon the deposition of the witnesses at Exh.-51, copy of FIR, copy of Panchnama of the place of accident, etc. 7.3 It is relevant to note herein that the S.T. Corporation has not examined the driver of the offending vehicle who is the best person to depose and denied the impugned accident but, the S.T. Corporation has also not examined the witnesses and therefore, now considering these aspects, without there being any cogent material brought on record, the contention raised by the appellant in the present appeal cannot be believed. Even the charge-sheet also came to be filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, therefore, they cannot deny that the accident occurred because of the negligency of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error while deciding the issue No.1, more particularly, in paragraph no.6.5, the liability fasten upon the present appellant – S.T. Corporation. 7.4 So far as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the original claimant has not preferred any appeal and therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and adequate and there is no need to discuss in this regard any further. Considering all these aspects, no interference is required to be called for. The present appeal, being devoid of any merits, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 7.5 The judgment and award dated 26.05.2017 passed by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. The stay granted by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2018 stands vacated. 7.6 The amount deposited by the appellant – S.T. Corporation lying in the FDR shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant through RTGS, after proper verification and the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall be disbursed in favour of the original claimant. The bank account details shall be furnished by the learned advocate for the claimant to the Nazir Department of the Tribunal concerned. The apportionment and order for disbursement as made by the Tribunal in the operative portion of the order shall hold good. The bank account details shall be furnished by the learned advocate for the claimant to the Nazir Department of the Tribunal concerned. The apportionment and order for disbursement as made by the Tribunal in the operative portion of the order shall hold good. The amount, if any, is lying with the Registry of this Court shall be transmitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. 8. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Pending civil applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.