JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act is at the instance of the owner of the vehicle and is directed against the award dated 07.12.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 256/1997 whereby, disposing of the application by awarding a sum of Rs.12,84,840/-as compensation for the death of Madho Singh arising out of the accident where the bus owned by the appellant was involved.

2. Being dissatisfied, the owner of the vehicle namely Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, “RSRTC”) has come up with the present appeal.

3. There is no dispute that on 02.10.1997 at about 1:35 pm, while the driver of the bus No. RJ-07-P-1038 left from Deshnok bus stand for Jodhpur and as soon as the bus started moving a little, it ran over Madho Singh and consequently he died. The claim petition was filed by his wife Mrs. Vimla Devi and four siblings. They are claiming that the deceased Madho Singh was working as a Constable in the police department of Government of Rajasthan and he used to earn Rs.50,400/-per annum. The amount claimed was Rs. 49,82,000/-.

3. The claim petition was contested by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation as well as the driver and the conductor of the bus involved.

4. In reply, the fact that the victim Madho Singh died of the accident was not denied. It was however, contended that due to negligence on the part of the deceased Madho Singh himself, the accident occurred, therefore, the appellant RSRTC would not be held responsible for the death. According to the appellants, as soon as the bus started moving a little from Deshnok bus stand, some of the passengers from rear side of the bus shouted that someone has fallen and was ran over by the bus.

5. The Tribunal below, on consideration of the material available on record came to the conclusion that it was due to the negligence of the driver of the bus involved that the accident occurred and in such circumstances, it was a fit case for grant of compensation. The compensation was assessed in the following way:-

6. Mr. M.R. Pareek, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant strenuously contended before me that while arriving at the conclusion that the driver of the bus alone was responsible for the death, the Tribunal below has totally misread the evidence on record.

7. He submitted that the learned Tribunal has erroneously concluded that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus No. RJ-07-P-1038 by its driver Sri Ram; that the deceased Madho Singh, in fact, was negligent and responsible for the accident inasmuch as he made attempt to board the moving bus but was unable to catch hold of the rod and fell down, on account of which, he sustained fatal injuries. He has further submitted that there was no rash or negligent act on the part of the bus driver Sri Ram. He has thus, prayed that the findings of the Tribunal below holding the driver of the offending bus to be rash and negligent resulting into death of Madho Singh be set aside.

8. According to Mr. Pareek, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal below is based on assumptions and presumptions since relevant evidence has not been considered in its correct perspective. The finding recorded qua issue No. 1 is ex-facie contrary to the fact and law. The learned Tribunal has discarded all other evidence including the deposition of driver and conductor of the involved bus; that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its correct perspective and has ignored the cogent