JUDGMENT Appeal is admitted and with the consent of both sides, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is by the KSRTC, challenging the compensation awarded by the Tribunal both on the ground of negligence as well as quantum. 3. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are: That on 7-4-2006, when the claimant was passing near Town Hall Circle at Tumkur, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-34-F-581 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, seeking compensation. The Tribunal awarded him a sum of Rs. 1,83,500/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realisation. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the KSRTC submits, the claimant was riding the motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-02-8618 along with two of his friends as pillion riders in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the KSRTC Bus. As such, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in holding that the claimant sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus. She further submits, even the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, particularly towards future loss of income is on the higher side and therefore, she prays for allowing the appeal by reducing the compensation. 6. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the claimant submits, the appellant was neither a rider nor a pillion rider in the motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-02-8618. It is the KSRTC bus which dashed against the said motor cycle and dashed against the claimant who was a pedestrian at that time. As a result, he sustained injuries. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the claimant has sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus by its driver. 7. It is the KSRTC bus which dashed against the said motor cycle and dashed against the claimant who was a pedestrian at that time. As a result, he sustained injuries. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the claimant has sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus by its driver. 7. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award, including the records of the Tribunal and satisfied with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus and there is no scope for interference with the said finding of the Tribunal. Accordingly, it is upheld. 8. Now I have to see whether the quantum of compensation awarded is just and reasonable or does it call for reduction. 9. The claimant has sustained multiple fracture of his skull and contusion of his brain. He was admitted as inpatient for about 2 days in NIMHANS and 10 days in Mallige Nursing Home. Injuries sustained and treatment taken are supported by the wound certificate-Ex. P. 5, discharge summary-Ex. P. 6, case-sheet-Ex. P. 10 and disability certificate-Ex. P. 11 and they are also supported by the oral evidence of the claimant and the doctor examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2 respectively. 10. Considering the nature of injuries, particularly multiple fracture of skull, Rs. 30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is just and proper and there is no scope for reduction. 11. As Rs. 47,335/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is based on the medical bills produced by the claimant, there is absolutely no scope for reduction. In fact Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges and Rs. 10,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities are marginally on the lower side. 12. P.W 2-the doctor has stated that the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 40% based on the clinical report and the Tribunal has worked out the future loss of income considering the disability at 30% and taking notional income at Rs. 15,000/- per annum and awarded Rs. 81,000/- towards future loss of income. From the above facts, it is clear that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is no scope for reduction. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. 15,000/- per annum and awarded Rs. 81,000/- towards future loss of income. From the above facts, it is clear that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is no scope for reduction. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal for payment. No order as to costs.