[2026:RJ-JP:13771] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1409/2018 1. Ramnaresh son of Ramcharan aged about 56 years. 2. Bhawani Singh son of Shankar Singh, aged about 21 years Both R/o Naya Bass, Nai Basti, Police Station, Basedi Tehsil Basedi, Distt. Dholpur (Raj. ----Appellants Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through its Chief Manager, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through its Depot Manager, Dholpur, District Dholpur (Raj.) ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1376/2018 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Service Through Chief Manager Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur 2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Service through Dholpur Depot Manager Dholpur (Raj) ----Appellants Versus 1. Ram Naresh son of Ram Charan aged about 56 years. 2. Bhawani Singh son of Shankar Singh, aged about 21 years Both R/o Naya Bas, Nai Basti, Police Thana, Basedi Tehsil Basedi, Distt. Dholpur (Raj. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg with Ms. Kriti Mishra (for respondents in CMA No.1376/2018) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Goyal (for appellants in CMA No.1376/2018) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order 02/0 4/2026 1. Both these appeals are arising out of a common judgment and award dated 06.01.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Sessions Judge) Bari, District Dholpur (for short ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.20/2016. [2026:RJ-JP:13771] (2 of 5) [CMA-1409/2018] 1.1 Appellants-claimants (for short ‘claimants’) have filed appeal i.e., S.B. CMA No.1409/2018, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 1.2 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘Corporation’) has filed appeal i.e., S.B. CMA No.1376/2018, assailing the legality and validity of the judgment and award in its entirety. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.02.2012, at about 06:45 AM, Ramnaresh along with his brother Ram Gopal was going on a motorcycle, bearing registration No. RJ-11-SD-1096, on Nadanpur Road. When they reached near the field of Shivcharan Brahmin, they found Bhawani Singh and started talking to him. Suddenly, a roadways bus, bearing registration No.RJ-11-PA-0055, owned by the Corporation, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from Nadanpur side and hit Ramnaresh and Bhawani Singh, as a result of which, both of them sustained grievous injuries. 3. The claimants filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.24,50,000/- and Rs.19,50,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by claimants Ramnaresh and Bhawani Singh, respectively. The Corporation filed reply to the claim petition, denying the allegations made therein. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues. The claimants examined AW-1 Ramnaresh & AW-2 Bhawani Singh and adduced documentary evidence in support of their claim petition, while the Corporation examined Aamin Khan as NAW-1. [2026:RJ-JP:13771] (3 of 5) [CMA-1409/2018] 5. The learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment and award, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.2,28,954/- in favour of claimant - Ramnaresh and Rs.1,10,300/- in favour of claimant - Bhawani Singh. 6. At the outset, learned counsel for the Corporation has submitted that while dealing with the Issue No.1, pertaining to involvement of the bus and negligence of the driver, the learned Tribunal has failed to decide the issue of negligence which is sine qua non for deciding a claim petition. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has merely reproduced the statements of the witnesses without any discussion or reasoning on the issue of negligence and hence prayed to quash the impugned judgment on this ground alone. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Corporation. 8. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, this Court finds substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the Corporation. While deciding the Issue No.1, the learned Tribunal in Para Nos.6 to 8 merely reproduced the statements of AW-1, AW-2 and NAW-1, respectively and thereafter without assigning any reason, straightaway held that the accident occurred as a result of which claimants sustained injuries and decided the issue in favour of the claimants. There is even absence of finding on the negligence of the driver. 9. It is a settled principle of law that any finding given or a decision arrived at by a Court should be supported by the reasons and discussions. An unreasoned order violates the principle of Natural Justice and thus is not legally sustainable. [2026:RJ-JP:13771] (4 of 5) [CMA-1409/2018] 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Munshi reported in (2008) 9 SCC 390, while discussing about the importance of reasons in an order, expounded as under: "5. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable. 6. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union (1971) 1 All ER 1148, observed: "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration." In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC) it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice." "Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at." Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking-out. The "inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance." (emphasis supplied) On the basis of above, in absence of any reason or discussion upon the question of negligence of bus driver, the findings given by the learned Tribunal upon Issue No.1 cannot be legally sustained. 11. Since, the issue of negligence of the driver of the bus belonging to Corporation is required to be decided before making any decision upon the quantum of compensation, therefore, the [2026:RJ-JP:13771] (5 of 5) [CMA-1409/2018] impugned judgment and award dated 06.01.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside. 12. The matter is accordingly remanded to the learned Tribunal to decide all the issues afresh on the basis of the evidences already available on record. It is made clear that no further opportunity for leading the evidence shall be granted to the parties. 13. Since, the accident occurred in the year 2012, it is expected from the learned Tribunal to decide the case as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties. 14. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 04.05.2026. 15. The awarded amount as deposited by the Corporation in pursuance of the interim order dated 27.04.2018 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1376/2018 shall remain subject to the final outcome of the claim petition. 16. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. 17. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 18. Registry is directed to send back the record of the case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J AVINASH GULERIA /18-19