JUDGMENT : P.B. Sawant, J. 1. This is an appeal against the award given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon. The admitted facts are as follows: A motor bus belonging to the Respondent No. 1 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation' had a collision with a truck owned by the 1st Appellant at about 9.15 a.m. on the 29th September, 1977 near Vichkhede village in Jalgaon District. As a result of this accident, the driver of the bus one Prahlad Patil died, about 2 to 3 passengers in the bus sustained physical injuries and the bus was damaged extensively. Respondent No. 1, Corporation, therefore, preferred a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon, claiming therein: (1) the amount of compensation of Rs. 21,600/- paid by it to the (sic. legal representatives of the) deceased driver under the Workmen's Compensation Act; (2) an amount of Rs. 1,350/- being the compensation paid to the injured passengers; and (3) an amount of Rs. 50,000/- being the value of the damage sustained by the bus. The Tribunal awarded the first two sums in toto and as regards the damage to the bus awarded a sum of Rs. 32,042.01. Thus in all a sum of Rs. 54,992.01 rounded off to Rs. 55,000/- was awarded to Respondent No. 1 Corporation. It is against this award that the present appeal has been preferred by the owner of the truck as well as the insurer the New India Assurance Company being Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 2. Two contentions have been raised by Mr. Chaphekar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants. The first relates to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to award the amounts of Rs. 21,600/- and Rs. 1,350/- and the second relates to the accuracy of the value of damage to the bus assessed by the Tribunal. 3. With regard to the first contention, it is contended by Mr. Chaphekar relying on the provisions of Sections 110(1) and 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to award the said amounts. Admittedly, Rs. 21,600/- which are claimed by the Corporation are on account of the compensation paid by it to the widow of the deceased driver under the Workmen's Compensation Act and amount of Rs. 1,350/- is on account of the injuries suffered by the passengers. Admittedly, Rs. 21,600/- which are claimed by the Corporation are on account of the compensation paid by it to the widow of the deceased driver under the Workmen's Compensation Act and amount of Rs. 1,350/- is on account of the injuries suffered by the passengers. Section 110(1) in terms states that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined to adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. Section 110-A states that the application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 110 may be made; (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (aa) by the owner of the property; or (b) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (c) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. In other words, in the present case the claim for compensation payable to the widow of the deceased driver could have been made only by the legal representative of the deceased driver, i.e. the widow in the present case and not by the Corporation. So also the amount of Rs. 1,350/- paid to the injured persons could have been claimed only by the persons themselves and not by the Corporation. The Corporation, therefore, could not have filed an application for the said two amounts before Tribunal and the Tribunal could not have granted the same. In so far as the Tribunal has granted the said two claims it has acted beyond its jurisdiction. There does not appear to be any answer to this contention and hence, this contention must succeed on the plain language of the provisions of Section 110(1) and 110-A. We are, therefore, of the view that Mr. Chaphekar is entitled to succeed on this contention and to that extent the award made by the Tribunal will have to be modified. 4. As regards the second contention, namely, the challenge to the accuracy of the assessment of damage to the bus, Mr. Chaphekar is entitled to succeed on this contention and to that extent the award made by the Tribunal will have to be modified. 4. As regards the second contention, namely, the challenge to the accuracy of the assessment of damage to the bus, Mr. Chaphekar contended that the Tribunal had not examined anybody on behalf of the Corporation to come to its conclusion that the damage suffered by the bus in question amounted to Rs. 32,042.01. He submitted that the Tribunal had merely relied upon the affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation by one Mr. Mistri. We find that there is no substance in this contention. u/s 110-C(1) of the Act, the Claims Tribunal is empowered to hold any inquiry as it thinks fit, subject to any rules that may be made in that behalf. No rules have been pointed out to us which prevent the Tribunal from proceeding on the basis of the affidavits when no objection is taken by the parties to treating the affidavits as valid. In the present case the said Mr. Mistri has filed an affidavit annexing thereto the various documents showing the extent of damage caused to the bus and the value of assessment of the said damage. This documentary evidence included the first assessment memo as well as the subsequent assessment memo of the damage. These memos show that there was extensive damage to the engine of the bus inasmuch as the engine block was broken, the dynamo foundation was cracked, filter bracket was broken, filter was damaged, fuel injection pump body was cracked, the radiator pulley was damaged and tappet cover was pressed. The engine was thus damaged beyond repairs and hence, a new engine had to be substituted. The cost of the new engine is Rs. 24,600/-. The documents also show a sum of Rs. 2,903.30 on account of labour charges for the installation of the said engine and another sum of Rs. 4,538.71 on account of cost of the other materials used for the restitution of the said engine. The Appellants never objected to the said affidavit along with the said documents going on record, with the result that both the affidavit and the documents tendered with the affidavit were taken on record and exhibited by the Tribunal. There was also no application made on behalf of the Appellants to examine the said Mr. The Appellants never objected to the said affidavit along with the said documents going on record, with the result that both the affidavit and the documents tendered with the affidavit were taken on record and exhibited by the Tribunal. There was also no application made on behalf of the Appellants to examine the said Mr. Mistri, although it appears from the record that on behalf of the Corporation, Appellant No. 1 was called for examination and he was examined arid cross-examined in the case. Since no application was made by the Appellants for examining Mr. Mistri, his affidavit and the documents tendered by him went unchallenged. It is therefore too late in the day to make a grievance before us that the Tribunal was wrong in relying on the affidavit to come to its conclusion that the Corporation's bus had sustained damage and the value of the damage was to the extent of Rs. 32,042.01. 5. In the result, we partly allow the appeal and modify the award of the Tribunal by reducing from the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal a sum of Rs. 22,950/. Respondent No. 1, Corporation will therefore be entitled to a sum of Rs. 32,050/- together with interest at 6 per cent till realisation of the amount instead of Rs. 55,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The Appellants have deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the Tribunal. They will be entitled to withdraw the balance after deducting from the deposit sum of Rs. 32,050/-. 6. The parties to bear their own costs in the trial court as well as in this appeal.