Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—These three appeals have been filed by the R.S.R.T.C. (hereafter to be referred to as 'Corporation') seeking to challenge the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kushalgarh Sub-Division Area Camp Kushalgarh, Head-quarter Banswara dated 11.8.97, decreeing the three claim petitions, and awarding compensation of Rs.5000/-to Moij Ali respondent in appeal No.263, Rs.25,700/- to Qutubuddin respondent in appeal No.265, and Rs.65,450/- to Hatim Ali respondent in appeal No.264. 2. Since all the three claim petitions No.73, 75 and 76 arise out of the same accident, have been decided by common judgment, and therefore, these three appeals are also being decided by this common judgment. 3. The necessary facts are, that three claim petitions were filed by three different claimants as above, pleading basic facts being that the claimants Qutubuddin and Hatim Ali were travelling on the motorcycle No.RJ03-M-4452, which belonged to Moij Ali, and was being driven by Qutubuddin, while Hatim Ali was travelling thereon as a pillion rider. The motorcycle was being driven from Bagidora to Anandpuri, at Takhamod the Corporation's Bus No.6022, being driven by defendant Amrit Lal rashly and negligently and at a fast speed, came, which was initially taken on the wrong side, and suddenly it was again put straight, in which process, hint portion of the bus hit the motorcycle, as a result of which, both the occupants fell down and received injuries, and motorcycle was also substantially damaged. Qutubuddin and Hatim Ali have filed claim for compensation on account of injuries suffered by them, while Moij Ali has filed claim for property damage, i.e. damage suffered to his motorcycle. Separate sets of replies were filed in three claim petitions, collectively by the defendant No.1 and 2, and on the same lines. The substance of the reply is, that it was the motorcyclist, who was negligently driving the motorcycle, and bus was being driven at slow speed on the correct side, at that time, motorcyclist came from opposite direction, driving it at a fast speed and negligently, and dashed against the stationary bus. 4. Learned Tribunal framed 5 issues. Issue No.1 related to negligence and issues No.2 and 3 related to quantum. Issue No.4 is about liability of defendant and issue No.5 is about relief. 4. Learned Tribunal framed 5 issues. Issue No.1 related to negligence and issues No.2 and 3 related to quantum. Issue No.4 is about liability of defendant and issue No.5 is about relief. The claimants examined themselves before the learned Tribunal, inasmuch as, Qutubuddin appeared as P.W.1, Hatim Ali as P.W.2, Moij Ali as P.W.3, and the driver of the bus appeared as D.W.1. Various documen-tary evidence has been produced in the three different claim petitions. 5. The learned Tribunal deciding issue No.1 found the accident to be out come of sole negligence of the bus driver, then deciding issue No.2 in various claims, assessed the compensation as awarded, and as noticed above. 6. Assailing the impugned awards, learned counsel for the appellant in the first instance assailed the findings of the learned trial Court on issue No.1, and sought to contend, that the accident was result of sole negligence of the motorcyclist and not the bus driver, and in any case, it is clearly established to be a case of contributory negligence. Then the attention of the learned counsel was invited to the written statement, as recapitulated above, and then to the statement of D.W.1 Amrit Lal, who has deposed an entirely different story, inasmuch as, according to him, he started with the bus from Falwa to Banswara and when he reached in Udepura Chordi, he was driving the bus at a slow speed, and the two claimants were coming on the motorcycle, which was being driven at a speed of 70 k.m.p.h., looking to that motorcycle he took the bus on the left side of the road, but looking to the bus, they lost their equilibrium, and the motorcycle applied brakes, as a result of which motorcycle overturned, and the occupants received injuries. In other words, while in the witness-box he has completely disowned even the motorcycle having any impact with the bus, while as noticed above, according to the written-statement, the motorcycle was coming from opposite direction and head on dashed against the bus. Looking to this state of affairs, learned counsel gave up his challenge to the findings on issue No.1. 7. Then the learned counsel also challenged the findings on issue No.2, being about the quantum. 8. Looking to this state of affairs, learned counsel gave up his challenge to the findings on issue No.1. 7. Then the learned counsel also challenged the findings on issue No.2, being about the quantum. 8. In this regard, at the outset, it may be observed, even at the cost of repetition, that in claim No.73 filed by Moij Ali, the total award passed is of Rs.5000/-. A look at the provisions of Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act as it then existed, would show, that it clearly bars maintainability of any appeal against the award of the Claims Tribunal, if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than 10,000 rupees. Obviously, on the face of this legal bar, appeal No.263, filed against Moij Ali, is simply required to be dismissed, as not maintainable. 9. Then so far as appeals No.264 and 265 are concerned, it may at once be observed, that it is established law, that interference in appeal is permissible to be made only in the event of the amount of compensation awarded being shockingly high or shockingly low. Forum of appeal is not available for correcting arrears with mathematical precision, as all said and done, in the ultimate analysis, the assessment of compensation rests in the realm of guesswork, and is to be assessed on the basis of sound judicial discretion. 10. In the above background, a look at the judgment shows, that in the claim of Qutubuddin, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.12,000/- for loss of income, as the claimant could not go on his job, which fact is clearly proved by P.W.3 Moij Ali, with whom both the claimants were employed, and on whose motorcycle they were going. Then a sum of Rs.4800/- has been awarded as taxi fare, which was assailed on the ground of being excessive, but then, a look at the statement of P.W.1 Qutubuddin would show, that to assail the correctness of his deposition on this aspect, no cross-examination was directed at all. Then Rs.1500/- has been awarded for the attendant’s attending the claimant for three months, and for fracture of ribs, mental pain and agony, a paltry amount of Rs.8000/- has been awarded. Then Rs.1500/- has been awarded for the attendant’s attending the claimant for three months, and for fracture of ribs, mental pain and agony, a paltry amount of Rs.8000/- has been awarded. I feel handicapped in enhancing the compensation in absence of any appeal by the claimant, or at least cross-objection by the claimant, but then, I do not find any ground to interfere with the compensation in favour of the Corporation. 11. So far Hatim Ali is concerned, in his case also Rs.10,000/- has been awarded for loss of income, Rs.2400/- has been awarded for medical expenditure, duly supported by the bills, Rs.1500/- has been awarded for attending, for fracture etc. a paltry sum of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded, and a sum of Rs.40,000/- has been awarded for the fees of nursing home and consultation fees paid to the doctor, which amount is duly supported by the bills. Thus, in this case again I feel handicapped in enhancing the compensation in absence of any appeal by the claimant, or at least cross-objection by the claimant, but then I do not find any ground to interfere with the compensation in favour of the Corporation. 12. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that all the three appeals are dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.