[2026:RJ-JP:13058] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1394/2000 Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur. ----Appellant/ Non-claimant Versus 1. Smt. Panchi Wife Of Late Shri Om Prakash, 2. Krishna Son Of Late Shri Om Prakash, 3. Kumari Lali Daughter Of Late Shri Om Prakash, All Residents Of Vanchaki, Ten Kheda Molyaheda, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur. ...........Respondents/Claimants 4. Shri Gopal Ram Son Of Shri Surja Ram, Resident Of BasHaripura, Than Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu, Driver Bus No. Rj-14-P 2953, Jaipur Depot. ........Respondent/Driver 5. Shri Rameshwar Son Of Shri Prabhata, 6. Smt. Shanti Wife Of Shri Rameshwar, Residents Of Vanchaki, Ten Kheda Molyaheda, Tehsil Kot- putli, District-Jaipur. ----Respondents/ Non-Claimants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Pareek For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order 28/03/2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant- Corporation’) under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned judgment and award dated 24.07.1998, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim [2026:RJ-JP:13058] (2 of 4) [CMA-1394/2000] Tribunal, Kotputli, District Jaipur (for short ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.1008/1993 by which the claim petition filed by the respondents-claimants was partly allowed and a sum of Rs.2,20,000/-, along with interest @12% per annum from the date of filling of claim petition till payment, was awarded in favour of the respondents-claimants. 2. Heard learned counsel and perused the material available on record. 3. The brief facts of the case, giving rise to this appeal, are that on 28.09.1993, Om Prakash and Hari Ram were travelling in Tractor bearing registration No. HR35/3515. At about 2-3 AM, when they were on National Highway No. 8, a Bus, belonging to the appellant-Corporation, bearing Registration No. RJ-14-P- 2953, being driven by respondent No. 4, hit the said tractor, as a result of which Om Prakash died and Hari Ram sustained injuries. 4. Two separate claim petitions were filed before the learned Tribunal, one by the legal representatives of deceased Om Prakash (respondents-claimants herein) and another by injured Hari Ram. 5. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of both the parties, framed common issues and partly allowed both the claim petitions vide common judgment and award dated 24.07.1998 impugned herein. 6. The learned Tribunal vide the above-said judgment and award concluded that the respondent No. 4 – driver of bus was in the employment of the appellant-Corporation and was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently, due to which the [2026:RJ-JP:13058] (3 of 4) [CMA-1394/2000] accident occurred and resultantly, Om Prakash died and Hari Ram sustained injuries. 7. The appellant-Corporation assailed the said impugned judgment and award by filing two separate appeals viz. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1393/2000 (hereafter referred to as 'appeal No.1393/2000') and 1394/2000 (hereafter referred to as 'present appeal'). The appeal No.1393/2000 was filed against the judgment and award passed in claim petition filed by the injured Hari Ram. 8. This Court vide judgment dated 26.08.2011, dismissed the appeal No.1393/2000 and affirmed the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. The judgment passed by this Court was further assailed by the appellant-Corporation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 34135/2011, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 03.01.2012. 9. In view of the above, the issues pertaining to occurrence of accident, involvement of offending vehicle in the accident and liability of the appellant-Corporation have already attained finality. Hence, nothing remains to be adjudicated on that aspect of the matter in the present appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation has sought to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded to the respondents-claimants on the ground that the issue of quantum of compensation raised in the present appeal was not the subject matter for consideration, before this Court and the [2026:RJ-JP:13058] (4 of 4) [CMA-1394/2000] Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the appeals filed by the appellant- Corporation in the case of injured Hari Ram. 11. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and the record of the case, it is reflected that the determination of compensation of Rs.2,20,000/-, along-with interest @12% per annum, is based on correct examination of all the relevant factors and appreciation of the evidence produced before the learned Tribunal. Hence, this Court finds that the compensation so awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper with which no interference is required by this Court. 12. As a result of the above discussion, the present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. 13. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 14. Registry is directed to send back the record of the case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J TN/1