JUDGMENT : (Nupur Bhati, J.) 1. The instant misc. appeal has been filed by appellant/non-claimant No.1 viz. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (‘Corporation’) under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 assailing the judgment and award dated 02.06.2016 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.21/2013, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation in favour of respondents/claimants to the tune of Rs.3,30,000/- on account of untimely death of Ms. Krishna (deceased), who lost her life in the accident, which took place on 06.10.2012. 2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that the respondents/ claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of death of their daughter, Ms. Krishna, who was one and half years old at the time of accident. In the claim petition, it was inter-alia stated that on 06.10.2012 the daughter of the claimants along with claimant No.2, Indra, was travelling in Roadways Bus owned by non-claimant No.1 bearing registration number RJ-14-PB-0566. The aforesaid Bus was being plied by its driver i.e. non-claimant No.2 rashly and negligently and when the said Bus was going from Fuliyakallan to Shahpura, the driver of the said Bus lost his control over the Bus and near Arniya Ghoda, the Bus turned turtle. As a result of which, the claimants’ daughter fell into ‘Nala’ and she died due to drowning. The claimants thus filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.7,25,000/- on account of death of their daughter. 3. On receipt of the summons, on behalf of appellant/non-claimant No.1, reply to claim petition was filed while refuting the claim laid therein. It was stated that there was no fault on the part of driver of the offending Bus and the deceased due to negligence of her mother i.e. claimant No.2. It was thus stated and prayed that no liability could have been fastened upon the non-claimant. Despite service of the summons upon the non-claimant No.2/driver, nobody appeared on his behalf and, therefore, exparte proceedings were drawn against him on 23.08.2013. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues for determination. In support of their claim, the claimant No.1 examined himself as AW.1 and certain documents were exhibited. On behalf of non-claimants, no evidence was led. 5. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues for determination. In support of their claim, the claimant No.1 examined himself as AW.1 and certain documents were exhibited. On behalf of non-claimants, no evidence was led. 5. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the evidence adduced by the parties, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- in favour of claimants along with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. from 31.01.2013. The liability to satisfy the award was fastened upon all the non-claimants jointly and severally. 6. The instant misc. appeal was admitted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 14.09.2016 and an interim order was also passed to the effect that if the appellant Corporation deposits a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- of the award amount alongwith interest, after taking into consideration any amount deposited under Section 140 and/or proviso to Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 within a period of four weeks, the rest of the award was stayed. The amount when deposited, was ordered to be disbursed to the claimants in terms of the award. Later on, while confirming the interim order, the stay application was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 20.01.2017. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that while passing the impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal has not examined the material on record in its entirety and objectivity. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that while deciding the Issue No.1 the learned Tribunal has erred on facts and law and erroneously held that the driver of the offending Bus was plying the Bus rashly and negligently. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal as to negligence is based on assumption and presumption and the relevant evidence on record has not been considered in correct perspective. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no independent witness has been examined by the claimants in order to substantiate their claim. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that without any independent eyewitness being examined, and merely on the basis of investigation papers submitted by the Police, the learned Tribunal has held the negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that without any independent eyewitness being examined, and merely on the basis of investigation papers submitted by the Police, the learned Tribunal has held the negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to apply the principle of ‘rest ipsa locutor’ and contributory negligence which vitiates the impugned judgment and award. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that negligence cannot be solely attributed to the driver of the Bus, whereas due to negligence of the mother of the deceased, she fell into the ‘Nala’ and died due to drowning, however, the learned Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that while deciding the Issue No.3, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- along with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents have not filed any appeal against the impugned award. 10. Despite service none is present on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2/claimants and respondent No.3/non-claimant No.3. 11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 12. The learned Tribunal while deciding the Issue No.1, which was with respect to negligence on the part of driver of the offending Bus, has considered the statement of AW.1 Banshilal, who in his examination-in-chief stated that the deceased died due to offending Bus turning turtle and he specifically denied that while deceased was in the lap of her mother, she fell down and died. In rebuttal, the non-claimants though denied the averments made in the claim petition, however, no witness was examined by them. The learned Tribunal also considered that charge sheet (Ex.2) was filed against the driver of the offending Bus in the competent criminal court while finding that the driver was plying the Bus rashly and negligently. 13. I have also considered the submissions made by counsel for the appellant with regard to contributory negligence on the part of deceased herself. The learned Tribunal also considered that charge sheet (Ex.2) was filed against the driver of the offending Bus in the competent criminal court while finding that the driver was plying the Bus rashly and negligently. 13. I have also considered the submissions made by counsel for the appellant with regard to contributory negligence on the part of deceased herself. This Court finds that since the issue No.1 has rightly been decided by the learned Tribunal after considering the evidence led by the parties, in the considered view of this Court, no negligence at all could be attributed to the mother of the deceased, inasmuch the deceased was infant girl and while she was travelling with her mother/claimant No.2, the driver of the Bus lost his control over the Bus and the Bus turned turtle and deceased fell into the nearby ‘Nala’ and died. The learned Tribunal thus has rightly found that the entire negligence was on the part of driver of the offending Bus. 14. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal after considering age of the deceased, who was one and half years of age at the time of accident, awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and towards the loss of consortium, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the claimants and towards funeral expenses, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- in favour of claimants, which in considered view of this Court, is adequate one and calls for no interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly and in view of above discussion, this Court finds no force in the instant misc. appeal. The misc. appeal lacks merit, and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed.