T. N. VALLINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and award passed by the mact-vi, bijapur, m. v. c. No. 950 of 1995, dated 11-6-1998, ksrtc has come forward with the above appeal question in the finding of the negligence and also quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. ( 2 ) THE accident had occurred on 11-9-1995 at about 11. 45 a. m. near rabaleshwar on jamakhandi-babaleshwara road. It is alleged that on the date of accident the petitioner was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No. Ka-29-m-238, at that time ksrtc bus bearing registration No. Ka-31-f-994 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the jeep. As a result the petitioner sustained injuries as complained in the claim petition. ( 3 ) THE injuries sustained by the claimant/appellant are as follows; 1. Injuries to left palm joint and stomach. 2. Injuries to head and right leg. ( 4 ) THIS is evidenced by the wound certificate, exs. P. 4 and 5 coupled with the evidence of the doctor, P. W. 3. The tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced, has granted a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for medical expenses, Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment and another sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards permanent disablement. Thus, in all, the tribunal has granted Rs. 1,80,000/- as total compensation with interest at 10% p. a. from the date of petition till date of realisation. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant points out that there was a negligence on the part of the injured and that has not been considered by the court below and exs. P. 1, p. 2 and p. 3, namely complaint, fir and panchanama alone cannot be relied upon to decide the question of negligence. The evidence of p. ws. 1 and 2 and r. w. 1 certainly goes to show that the negligence is on the part of the injured also. In fact ex. P. 3, the panchanama clearly discloses that the claimant himself mainly responsible for the accident and he contributed much in the accident. It is further contended that the evidence of r. w. 1, the driver of the ksrtc bus was not properly appreciated. His evidence remained unchallenged as he was not cross-examined. In fact ex. P. 3, the panchanama clearly discloses that the claimant himself mainly responsible for the accident and he contributed much in the accident. It is further contended that the evidence of r. w. 1, the driver of the ksrtc bus was not properly appreciated. His evidence remained unchallenged as he was not cross-examined. ( 6 ) ON the question of quantum of compensation, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the swelling present 3" x 3" and other three simple injuries as noted in ex. P. 4, the wound certificate, cannot be compensated by awarding such huge compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- which is definitely on the higher side. ( 7 ) GRANT of compensation without any evidence or any reference and relevance either to commonsense or to common factors is certainly not proper in this case. The tribunal was either carried away by sympathetical approach or by awarding exorbitant grant without any nexus to the accident that has happened and such a trend should be checked up. Otherwise, the system itself will become a mockery in the eye of law. The claim of Rs. 50,0007- for medical expenses for such simple injuries is certainly unimaginable apart from Rs. 30,0007- for injury, pain and sufferings. Then the loss of income for such a period has been taken as Rs. 50,000/- and another Rs. 50,000/- was granted towards loss of future income. Probably, the tribunal has thought that a man can be made rich by getting involved in an accident. That is not what the courts are for. ( 8 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the injuries sustained can never be compensated in terms of money and it is pain that a man suffers that can be understood only by him. Any amount of cash is not going to reduce his pain or relieve him of the effect of such injuries on his body. It is only a solatium to the man who suffered injuries in the accident which can be compensated by the tribunal which is not enough by stretch of yardstick. ( 9 ) I have considered the submissions made by the respective counsels. I also feel that just, reasonable and fairness of the compensation within the meaning of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Compensation as statute contemplates should be just and not reasonable compensation. ( 9 ) I have considered the submissions made by the respective counsels. I also feel that just, reasonable and fairness of the compensation within the meaning of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Compensation as statute contemplates should be just and not reasonable compensation. The reasonable compensation may vary from claimant to claimant and from case to case. Just compensation is fixed with respect to each nature of injuries sustained and not all injuries attract the compensation. The word just used in Section 168 of the act reads as follows. " (1) on receipt of an application for compensation made under Section 166, the claims tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the Provisions of Section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the claims tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be". the word "just" has been given the meaning of "fair, impartial, reasonable, based on justice, deserved" in chambers 21st century dictionary. Therefore, the word used in the Section must be understood as reasonable and deserved. To award reasonable compensation, it has to be borne in mind what is the compensation the claimant deserved and this should be decided on the facts of each case in coming to such a decision the abundant commonsense should be used taking into consideration the practical purpose involved therein. ( 10 ) IN fact this court in the case of B. H. Rangaiah v H. R. V. Basavaraju and another , has considered this aspect wherein it is laid down as follows. "this case illustrates the consequence of the apathy being displayed by the courts in claims for motor accident compensation, the courts have been lenient whenever a victim of a motor accident approaches the court and taking note of the injuries sustained by the claimants awards just compensation. "this case illustrates the consequence of the apathy being displayed by the courts in claims for motor accident compensation, the courts have been lenient whenever a victim of a motor accident approaches the court and taking note of the injuries sustained by the claimants awards just compensation. But, now it is discovered that it is exceeding the limits and the apathy of the court is being exploited. The present case from which the appeal is preferred is one such case where an exaggerated claim has been made for a very minor and trivial injury, if one may describe it so, suffered by a person in a motor accident. I am of the view that it is a totally misconceived notion that in every accident case an appropriate, reasonable compensation, should be awarded irrespective of the gravity of the injury. The compensation, should be as the statute contemplates, a "just" compensation and not "reasonable" compensation as claimed. A "reasonable" compensation may vary from claimant to claimant and from counsel to counsel, whereas "just" compensation is fixed with respect to the nature of injuries sustained. In this case, there is no such injury that the claimant has sustained attracting the award of "just" compensation. It is to be noted that claimant has taken the matter very lightly and in a most cavalier manner". The learned single judge goes on to hold that: "not all injuries attract compensation. There may be trivial or inconsequential injuries which do not deserve award of any compensation. Time is ripe for the courts to take judicial notice of an unhealthy trend that is growing in the motor accidents claim jurisdiction. It is high time that the tribunal takes note of the fact there are being made exaggerated claims for compensation with respect to minor injuries sustained, by an accident victim describing and camouflaging it to be very serious in nature and describing the claim as made for just compensation. It has come to the notice of this court that there are several tribunals also which fall a victim to such an exaggerated claim with unreliable evidence either accidentally or deliberately. It is only reasonable that court exercises its judicial power very judiciously in these matters so that only just claims are met and awarded just compensation as an undeserving award will have also to be satisfied by the insurance companies utilising public money". It is only reasonable that court exercises its judicial power very judiciously in these matters so that only just claims are met and awarded just compensation as an undeserving award will have also to be satisfied by the insurance companies utilising public money". This view is followed by another single judge of this court in the decision of united India insurance company limited v d. c. rajanna and another, while commenting upon the compensation awardable under the head of loss of future earning capacity, this court held as follows. "the claims tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of amenity, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of earnings for a period of 3 months during the period of treatment, and Rs. 800/- towards conveyance charges, and the same are not in dispute. It is only insofar as it relates to the award of compensation of Rs. 1,15,200/- towards loss of future earnings, it is contended that the question of awarding compensation under this head does not arise since there was no any loss of earning as the injured was working as the deputy manager of h. m. t. and that there was also no evidence to show that his wages have been reduced or any increments have been stopped or withheld. It is unfortunate that in almost all cases, the claims tribunal without applying its mind and appreciating the evidence, blindly award compensation on the heading "loss of future earnings". It has to be borne in mind, while awarding compensation for future loss of earning, there must be evidence to show that as a result of injury, the income was reduced or there was loss of earnings or he was removed from service on account of disability or he is incapable of doing any work. In the absence of these factors, the question of awarding any compensation on the heading "loss of future earnings" does not arise. It is no doubt true that in case of injury, if there is any disability, that the claimant is entitled for compensation on the heading of disability and not on the heading of "loss of future earnings" ". In the absence of these factors, the question of awarding any compensation on the heading "loss of future earnings" does not arise. It is no doubt true that in case of injury, if there is any disability, that the claimant is entitled for compensation on the heading of disability and not on the heading of "loss of future earnings" ". the present case is a specific instance of the highest grant awarded by the tribunal without any reference or relevance to the injuries suffered or the disability that is said to have been sustained by the victim of the accident. I am in entire agreement with the above proposition laid down by this court in the above two cases. ( 11 ) COMING to the question of injury, the victim has complained injuries to his left palm joint, and stomach and also injuries to head and right leg. He claimed that there was a blood clot and he took treatment for 12 days and afterwards he was taken to mallya hospital and he travelled in airconditioned railway coach to Bangalore spending Rs. 1,600/- for four persons and he spent nearly Rs. 50,424/- for 25 days and one doctor, his wife, his elder brother had been to Bangalore at mallya hospital where he has undergone stomach operation for which he has spent Rs. 50,424/- out of which Rs. 40,000/- was taken for medicine and Rs. 1,760/- for room rent in legislative home and at suprabhat hotel. It is claimed that due to stomach operation a small intestine was cut to the extent of 9" and he was prohibited from taking any non-vegetarian foods as he was participating in politics. While calculating the medical expenses, his deposit of Rs. 13,0007- in ex. P. 13, in ex. P. 15 also has been taken as expenses. He claimed that because of stomach operation, the injury has become disability to the extent of 20%. He further claimed that he was growing sugarcane and incurred loss of income. Whether the yield which is claimed to be 2,000 tonnes was reduced because of his ailment is not spoken to by any witness. However, the tribunal has granted a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of income, Rs. 50,000/- towards permanent disability, Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and sufferings. Whether the yield which is claimed to be 2,000 tonnes was reduced because of his ailment is not spoken to by any witness. However, the tribunal has granted a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of income, Rs. 50,000/- towards permanent disability, Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and sufferings. ( 12 ) THOUGH the compensation granted towards medical expenses is on the high side, taking into consideration that the claimant and his attendants travelled in airconditioned coach and stayed in the high class hotels, grant of Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and sufferings can be sustained. But the compensation granted under the head of loss of income at Rs. 50,000/- can never be imagined. Admittedly, the claimant/respondent herein is a politician and he does not have any income of his own except the income from the sugarcane. There is absolutely no evidence about the loss of product of sugarcane. Though he is an agriculturist, he does not enter the field nor he engaged himself in cutting his sugarcane or carrying to the factory and that is done by the workers working under him and that could not be affected because of the ailment of their boss and also there is no evidence on this aspect. Therefore, the grant of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of income has to be set aside in view of the second ruling referred to above. ( 13 ) THE permanent disablement is fixed at Rs. 50,000/- by the court below. There again no calculation is made and even the doctor has spoken about the 20% of the alleged disablement but what could be the disablement of 20% is not explained. In any event, the grant of Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and sufferings is more than enough. However, it will be quite reasonable, just and fair to grant minimum of Rs. 20,000/- towards the alleged disablement and not beyond that. Therefore, the award granted in this case has to be reduced to only Rs. 1,00,000/- i. e. t Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses and treatment, Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and sufferings and rs. 20,000/- towards permanent disability. ( 14 ) ON the question of negligence, r. w. 1, the driver of the bus was examined. The injured was travelling in a jeep to attend the meeting of zilla parishad. 1,00,000/- i. e. t Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses and treatment, Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and sufferings and rs. 20,000/- towards permanent disability. ( 14 ) ON the question of negligence, r. w. 1, the driver of the bus was examined. The injured was travelling in a jeep to attend the meeting of zilla parishad. Simply because the police have registered the case only against the bus driver, especially at the instance of the politician, the same cannot be a ground to hold that the accident had occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The tribunal has not even considered the evidence of r. w. 1, the driver of the bus. In fact in the case of bhai shamsher singh v punjab state road transport corporation, the Punjab and Haryana High Courthas held as follows. "where a head-on collision between two vehicles has taken place and it is on the middle of the road, it has to be held that both drivers are equally negligent in causing accident. The liability is fixed at 50% each". Again in another decision reported in 1995 acc 631, the Punjab and Haryana High Courtlaid down as follows. "where an accident has taken place due to head-on collision between a truck and matador, it has to be held that both the drivers are guilty of rash and negligent driving". ( 15 ) ADMITTEDLY, the spot sketch coupled with the evidence of r. w. 1, the driver of the bus and i. m. v. report shows that there was a head-on collision between the bus and the jeep wherein the claimants were travelling. Therefore, applying the theory of res ipsa loquitur i hold that the negligence of the appellant can be only 50% and the respondent/claimants have contributed 50% negligence in causing the accident. ( 16 ) TAKING into consideration the status of the persons and taking into consideration that there is no evidence at all regarding the actual spending by way of airconditioned coach and staying in a star hotel, i feel it proper to disallow the claim indicated above and also fix the 50% negligence on the part of the respondent/claimant. ( 17 ) THUS, i hold that the total compensation to which the claimant/respondent herein is entitled to is Rs. 1,00,000/ -. ( 17 ) THUS, i hold that the total compensation to which the claimant/respondent herein is entitled to is Rs. 1,00,000/ -. In view of my finding on negligence that there was a contributory negligence to an extent of 50% on the part of the respondent/claimants, 50% alone is payable by the appellant-ks. r. t. c. , with interest at 10% per annum as fixed by the court below. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation awarded by the tribunal is reduced from Rs. 1,80,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) with interest at 10% p. a. from the date of petition till date of realisation. If any money paid in excess already, the appellant shall be entitled to refund of the same. The appeal is allowed accordingly. --- *** --- .