JUDGMENT : (Nupur Bhati, J.) 1. The instant misc. appeal has been filed by appellants/non-claimants viz. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (‘Corporation’) under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 assailing the judgment and award dated 01.06.2004 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.119/2001, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation in favour of respondents/claimants to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of untimely death of Ms. Rekha (deceased), who lost her life in the accident, which took place on 19.05.2001. 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. Rekha. In the claim petition, it was inter-alia stated that while their daughter Ms. Rekha was standing outside their house, the driver of the offending Bus bearing registration number RJ-27-P-2338 drove the Bus rashly and negligently & hit Ms. Rekha, as a result of which she sustained injuries and she died during treatment. The respondents No.1 & 2/claimants thus filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- under various heads. 3. On receipt of the summons, on behalf of appellants/non-claimants No.1 and 2 and driver/non-claimant No.3, joint 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 died due to her own fault, inasmuch as she while walking on the road, came in the middle of the road and dashed with the Bus. It was thus stated and prayed that no liability could have been fastened upon the non-claimants. 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 AW.2 Raju Yadav and certain documents were exhibited. On behalf of non-claimants, statements of NAW.1 Devishanker (non-claimant No.3/ driver) were recorded. 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.1,00,000/- in favour of claimants along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. from 02.07.2001. 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.1,00,000/- in favour of claimants along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. from 02.07.2001. 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 04.04.2005 and thereafter after hearing learned counsel for the appellant, the stay application was dismissed on 27.09.2005. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants 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 appellants 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 appellants while drawing the attention of the Court towards site plan submits that there is no negligence on the part of driver of the offending Bus and the accident had occurred on coal tar road. He submits that the although driver of the offending Bus tried best efforts to avoid the accident, but since the deceased suddenly came on the road, the accident could not be averted. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants 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 appellants submits that negligence cannot be solely attributed to the driver of the Bus, whereas the it was the deceased herself, who came on the road suddenly without even seeing that the Bus is coming on the road. Learned counsel for the appellants thus submits that the deceased herself was equally responsible for the said accident, however, the learned Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants thus submits that the deceased herself was equally responsible for the said accident, however, the learned Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that while deciding the Issue No.3, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that no evidence was produced to show that the claimants were at all in position to provide education to the deceased and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding the compensation on the basis of assumption and presumption. Learned counsel for the appellants 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 appellants 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.2 Raju Yadav, who in his examination-in-chief stated that on 19.05.2001 it was about 12.45 pm, the driver of the offending Bus (RJ-27-P-2338) who was coming from Udaipur, while plying the Bus rashly and negligently hit Ms. Rekha, while she was standing on the extreme corner of the road. On account of said accident, Rekha sustained injuries and thereafter she was taken to hospital, however, during treatment, she died. It was specifically stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Bus. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has considered the fact that FIR (Ex.1) was lodged against the driver of the offending Bus, wherein after investigation, Challan (Ex.5) was filed against the driver of the offending Bus, and this fact was admitted by the driver/non-claimant No.3. The learned Tribunal found that even on the turn, it was the duty of the driver to ply the vehicle cautiously at a moderate speed, however, after perusing the Site Plan (Ex.6), the learned Tribunal found that the blood was found on the road and the area, where the accident occurred, was thickly populated area. The learned Tribunal found that even on the turn, it was the duty of the driver to ply the vehicle cautiously at a moderate speed, however, after perusing the Site Plan (Ex.6), the learned Tribunal found that the blood was found on the road and the area, where the accident occurred, was thickly populated area. The learned Tribunal also found that that the deceased was a three years’ old girl and there was no fault on her part. The statements of the AW.2 remained unrebutted by the non-claimants. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the learned Tribunal has rightly decided Issue No.1 against the appellants. 13. I have also considered the submissions made by counsel for the appellants 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 deceased, inasmuch the deceased was infant girl and while she was standing near the road, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Bus, she lost her life. 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 Ex.8 viz. postmortem report found that the deceased was three years of age at the time of accident. While awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal has considered the judgment passed in the case of Lata Vadhwa & Ors. vs. State of Bihar : 2001 ACJ 1735 , 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.