( 1 ) HEARD both the counsel. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the order dt. 29-1-2002 passed by the court of VI Additional District judge, Visakahapatnam in M. O. P. No. 1194/ 1999 in granting compensation to the claimant, the Andhra Pradesh State Road transport Corporation (for short the corporation ) filed the appeal. ( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that on 20-9-1998 the claimant along with wife and mother-in-law boarded the bus of the corporation bearing No. A. P. 10z 3332 at r. T. C. Complex, Visakhapatnam to go to kakinada. At about 9. 30 a. m. , when the bus reached Namavaram village, the driverof the bus drove it In a rash and negligent manner with high speed and without blowing horn and also drove on the extreme right side and dashed a lorry bearing No. A. P. 31 U 1135, which was stopped on the extreme left side of the road. As a result of the accident, the claimant sustained fracture to his right leg and he also sustained other multiple and external grievous injuries and there was heavy bleeding. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to K. G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam, where he underwent treatment upto 2-10-1998 and after discharge, he again underwent treatment in Amruta Nursing home, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam from 12-10-1998 to 26-10-1998 and that he also underwent treatment in B. H. P. V. Hospital, visakhapatnam. During the above said period, he had undergone three operations and surgical instruments were inserted in his right leg and that the treatment is not yet completed. Claiming that he is working in b. H. P. V. as Crane Operator, earning an amount of Rs. 6,500/- per month, the claimant filed claim petition for an amount of 1,50,000/ -. The case of the claimant is that due to the accident, he is unable to attend his regular duties and became permanently disabled and that it has become difficult to continue his job, as he is a crane operator. ( 4 ) THE driver of the bus and the driver of the lorry involved in the accident, remained ex parte. The case of the claimant is that due to the accident, he is unable to attend his regular duties and became permanently disabled and that it has become difficult to continue his job, as he is a crane operator. ( 4 ) THE driver of the bus and the driver of the lorry involved in the accident, remained ex parte. The Corporation filed counter and contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 31 U 1135 as it came on the centre of the road in a rash and negligent manner, though the bus was on the extreme left side of the road. Therefore, it was contended that the owner of the lorry and the insurer of the lorry were responsible to pay the compensation. ( 5 ) THE owner of the lorry involved in the accident also filed counter and denied that there was any negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and as per the case of the claimant the driver of the bus Is responsible for the accident. ( 6 ) THE insurer of the lorry, which Is United india Insurance Company also filed counter and denied the contention of the Corporation that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry, and sought for dismissal of the claim petition against them. ( 7 ) BASED on the rival contentions, the tribunal framed the following issues for consideration: (1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries on account of the rash and negligent driving of the A. P. S. R. T. C. Bus bearing No. A. P. 10 Z 3332 by the first respondent-driver? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount and against which of the respondents? (3) To what relief? ( 8 ) IN support of the case of the claimant, p. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A-1 to a-9 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of the bus was examined as R. W. 1. No documents were filed on behalf of the respondents. ( 9 ) BASED on the evidence on record, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus belonging to the Corporation bearing no. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of the bus was examined as R. W. 1. No documents were filed on behalf of the respondents. ( 9 ) BASED on the evidence on record, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus belonging to the Corporation bearing no. AP 10 Z 3332 and considering the evidence of claimant as P. W. 1 and the doctor as P. W. 2, and also considering the nature of - injuries and permanent disability of 40 per cent sustained by the claimant, and the amount spent towards medicines, and loss of salary of the claimant, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs. 26,250/- towards loss of earnings; Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs. 3,000/- towards incidental and medical expenses; Rs. 15,000/- towards removal of plates and screws; Rs. 2,000/- towards transport to hospital and thus, in all he granted an amount of Rs. 66,250/ -. Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation filed this appeal. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that the court wrongly disbelieved the evidence of R. W. 1, driver of the bus and fastened the entire liability on the Corporation. She contended that as per the evidence on record, there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and therefore, both the corporation as well as the owner of the lorry are liable to pay the compensation. In support of her contention, she relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in New India Assurance co. Ltd. v. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, kishangarhbas She further contended that the Court below wrongly granted an amount of Rs. 26,250/- without taking into consideration that the claimant would get half salary during the period of leave. With these contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation sought to set aside the order of the Tribunal. ( 11 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents supporting the impugned order, sought for dismissal of the appeal. ( 12 ) FROM the material on record, it could be seen that the claimant who was examined as P. W. 1 deposed that when the bus reached near Namavaram village on N,h. No. 5 payakaraopeta, at about 9. ( 12 ) FROM the material on record, it could be seen that the claimant who was examined as P. W. 1 deposed that when the bus reached near Namavaram village on N,h. No. 5 payakaraopeta, at about 9. 30 a. m. a lorry bearing No. A. P. 312 U 1135 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the bus. As found by the court below the evidence of the claimant is contrary to what was stated by him in the claim petition. In the claim petition it is stated that on the date of accident, the driver of the bus drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, violating the traffic rules and dashed the lorry, which was stopped on the extreme left side of the road. The driver of the bus who was examined as R. W. 1 deposed that when the bus reached Namavaram village on N. H. No. 5 road, Payakaraopet at about 9. 30 a. m. lorry bearing No. AP 31 U 1135 came with high speed and in wrong direction and hit the bus, even though the bus was going on the extreme left side of the road. But in the counter filed by the corporation it is stated that the lorry came on the centre of the road in a rash and negligent manner and though the bus on the extreme left, it hit the bus. Though there appears to be not much contradiction between the evidence of R. W. 1 and the counter averment, but there is no consistency. Therefore, both the evidence of P. W. 1 and the evidence of R. W. 1 cannot be relied upon. In the cross- examination of R. W. 1, he admitted that a criminal case against him was filed and the charge sheet is marked as Ex. A-9. During the course of enquiry, the investigation office found that the driver of the bus was negligent in driving of the vehicle. Therefore, in the light of Ex. A-9 and in the light of the above facts and circumstances, the court below has rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus of the Corporation and not due to negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. This being a finding of fact cannot be interfered with the appeal. This being a finding of fact cannot be interfered with the appeal. ( 13 ) THE decision of the Apex Court relied on by the counsel for the appellant that when there is negligence on the part of both the vehicles, both of them are liable to pay compensation; cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the present case, there is no finding that there is negligence on the part of other vehicle, which is lorry. ( 14 ) THE Corporation disputed the grant of an amount of Rs. 26,250/- towards the loss of earnings of the claimant. In this regard the evidence of P. W. 1 is to the effect that immediately after the accident, he was taken to K. G. Hospital, Visakhapatnamfortreatment and that he was in K. G. Hospital as in-patient for 13days and thereafter, shifted to B. H. P. V. Hospital and was treated in the said hospital for one week. He deposed that he was referred to Amrutha Nursing Home for the purpose of operation and he was In the said hospital for 15 days and underwent surgery and that he spent an amount of Rs. 40,000/- towards medicines and that due to the injury, he could not attend his office for six months and received half salary for 12 days and did not receive salary for 105 days. P. W. 2 is the doctor, who treated the claimant and who issued Ex. A-6 disability certificate. The evidence of P. W. 2 is to the effect that at the time of operation dynamic condylar plate and screws are inserted in right femur bone and it required another operation for removal of plate and screws. He deposed that there is functional disability of 40 per cent, which is partial. However, as he is not the competent authority to issue Ex. A-6 and that the District medical Officer is the competent authority, the court below has rightly not relied on ex. A-6. But however, as per his evidence, there is 40 per cent functional disability. As already noted, the claimant as P. W. 1 deposed that due to the injury, he could not attend office for six months and received half salary for 12 days and did not receive salary for 105 days. In support of his case, he relied on ex. But however, as per his evidence, there is 40 per cent functional disability. As already noted, the claimant as P. W. 1 deposed that due to the injury, he could not attend office for six months and received half salary for 12 days and did not receive salary for 105 days. In support of his case, he relied on ex. A-8, which revealed that he was on unauthorized leave from 21-9-1998 to 31-3-1999, which clearly shows that he did not receive salary for the said period of 105 days. The claimant also relied on Ex. A-7 to show that he was getting salary of Rs. 7,517/- by the date of accident. Therefore, considering the evidence on record, in my considered opinion, the court below has rightly granted an amount of Rs. 26,500/- towards the loss of salary. I do not find any contra evidence, to come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the court below. ( 15 ) IN view of the foregoing reasons, I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. No costs.