Judgment :- 1. The appeal by the Corporation and the Cross objection by the claimant/cross objector are directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 24th May 2010, passed in MVC No.4631/2009, by the II Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-13), (for short, ‘Tribunal’). 2. While the appellant/Corporation has filed the appeal seeking reduction of compensation awarded for the damages caused to the vehicle, the claimant/cross objector has filed the cross objection for enhancement of compensation for the damages caused to the vehicle in the road traffic accident, on the ground that, the compensation of Rs.1,06,590/- awarded in favour of the claimant/cross objector as against his claim for Rs.9,00,000/-, is inadequate. 3. The occurrence of accident at about 7:10 A.M on 26/02/2009 and the resultant damages caused to the private Bus, belonging to the claimant/cross objector on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the KSRTC Bus in question are not in dispute. 4. On account of the damages caused to the private Bus in question, in the motor vehicle accident, the claimant/cross objector filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- against the Corporation. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 24th May, 2010. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs.1,06,590/-with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal, the Corporation is in appeal seeking substantial reduction in compensation and being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards damages caused to the vehicle, the claimant/cross objector has filed the cross objection before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for Corporation and learned counsel appearing for claimant/cross objector, for quite some time. 6. Shri.K.S. Bharath Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, at the outset submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in taking the income from the vehicle under repair at Rs.600/- per day and assessing the stoppage of Bus for a period of 40 days, without any basis. 6. Shri.K.S. Bharath Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, at the outset submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in taking the income from the vehicle under repair at Rs.600/- per day and assessing the stoppage of Bus for a period of 40 days, without any basis. Further, he submits that a sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded by Tribunal towards towing and sundry charges and a sum of Rs.67,590/- towards net loss due to damages is excessive and on the higher side and liable to be reduced substantially. Therefore, he submits that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified by reducing the compensation substantially. 7. As against this, learned counsel appearing for claimant/cross objector vehemently submitted that, the compensation awarded by Tribunal for the damages caused to the vehicle is on the lower side and liable to be enhanced considerably, for the reason that, as per Ex.P12, they have produced 17 vehicle repair bills for a sum of Rs.1,62,354-25 and have pleaded that they were getting net profit of Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,500/- per day. Therefore, he submits that the Tribunal has grossly erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards net loss due to damages, loss due to stoppage of Bus and also towards towing and sundry expenses and hence, the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified by enhancing the compensation substantially. 8. After considering the rival submission of the learned counsel appearing for both parties, after going through the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence assessed by Tribunal, the only point that arise for my consideration in the appeal and the cross objection is: “Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable?” After perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, it emerges that occurrence of accident on the aforementioned date and time, on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of Bus, bearing Registration No.KA-07/F-1174, belonging to KSRTC, and the resultant damages caused to the private Bus bearing Registration No.TN-32/N-393, belonging to the claimant/cross objector are not in dispute. 9. 9. In order to prove the case of the claimant/cross objector, he has examined himself as PW1 and examined one more witness as PW2 and got marked as many as 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12 on the other hand, the Corporation did not lead any evidence. The Police, after due investigation, have filed Ex.P4 – charge sheet against the driver of the Bus belonging to Corporation and Ex.P2 – Mahazar discloses that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Bus belonging to the Corporation. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of KSRTC Bus. Hence, interference in the same is not called for. 10. So far as the damages caused to the private Bus belonging to the claimant/cross objector is concerned, it emerges that, the claimant to substantiate his case, has produced the relevant documents pertaining to his ownership of the Bus and also vehicle repair bills. He has also examined the surveyor and approved valuer who has assessed the loss as PW2. The surveyors report and several photographs reflect the extent of damages caused to the private Bus and are marked as exhibits. Ex.P7 comprises of 10 photographs and negatives which shows the extent of damages caused to the private Bus owned by the claimant/cross objector. Ex.P3 is the certified copy of the IMV report and the damages found on the above Bus are stated therein and the claimant has towed the Bus to Vellore in order to get it repaired and make in road worthy. The Bus was repaired at Selliamman Body Builders bye-pass Road, Vellore City. One Mr. Keshavan, proprietor of Auto Diesel works has attended to a mechanical repair of the damaged vehicle and the claimant has filed his affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and has stated on oath about the fact that he has spent Rs.2,75,000/- to bring the Bus into road worthy condition. In support of the same, he has produced Ex.P12, consisting of a set of 17 vehicle repair bills for a sum of Rs.1,62,354-25. But, neither the authors of the said bills, nor the mechanic, or the proprietor of the said Body building Works is examined. In support of the same, he has produced Ex.P12, consisting of a set of 17 vehicle repair bills for a sum of Rs.1,62,354-25. But, neither the authors of the said bills, nor the mechanic, or the proprietor of the said Body building Works is examined. But the surveyors and the approved valuer is examined as PW2, who has visited the aforesaid Body Building Works and produced the final survey report, at Ex.P6 and as per the same, he has assessed the net loss suffered by the claimant at Rs.67,590/-, but nothing contrary is elicited through the said witness by the counsel for the Corporation and no evidence is led to discard the said material produced on behalf of the claimant. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the oral evidence and also the final survey report at Ex.P6 into consideration and awarded a sum of Rs.67,590/- towards net loss suffered by the claimant. Hence, interference in the same is not called for. 11. Further, it can be seen that the claimant has stated that his Bus was plying between KGF and Mulbagal and was getting net profit of Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,500/- per day. Except the said oral testimony, the claimant has not produced any material to substantiate the aforesaid income. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence in support of the said income and taking into consideration the fact that any private Bus owner would earn reasonable amount, the Tribunal has assessed the daily income from the Bus at Rs.600/-. Further, there is also no proper evidence so far as the duration of repair of the Bus or as to the duration, i.e. for how long, the Bus did not ply on the road due to the damages caused to it in the road traffic accident. However, on perusal of Ex.P7, photos and other material on record, the Tribunal has assessed that the private Bus belonging to the claimant would not have plied for a period of 40 days and was under repair for the said period and awarded a sum of Rs.24,000/-, at the rate of Rs.600/- per day for a period of 40 days, towards stoppage of Bus on account of the damages caused in the road traffic accident. The same, in my view is just and reasonable and it does not call for interference. 12. The same, in my view is just and reasonable and it does not call for interference. 12. Further, the Tribunal observed that the Bus was not in a condition to be driven till Vellore and therefore, the claimant/cross objector could have towed the same by incurring some expenses and might have visited the body building works several times during repairs and might have even spent some amount towards conveyance and his stay. He must have also purchased some spare parts for the repairs from various Automobile spare Parts Shops at Vellore and for the same he might have incurred expenses for travel by auto or any other modes of transport. In this regard, PW2 has also given profession bill for a sum of Rs.3,730/-at Ex.P5. Towards the said head, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-. The same in my view is also just and reasonable and hence, interference in the same is not called for. 13. The Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has rightly rejected the claim of the claimant/cross objector for a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- and awarded just and reasonable compensation towards net loss due to damages, loss due to stoppage of Bus and towing and sundry expenses. Hence, interference in the same is not called for. It can be seen that, neither the Corporation has made out any case for reduction nor the claimant/cross objector has made out any case for enhancement of compensation for the damages caused to the private Bus belonging to the claimant/cross objector. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the Corporation and the cross objection filed by the claimant/cross objector are dismissed as devoid of merits. The amount in deposit by the Corporation in the appeal filed by it shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith. Office to draw award, accordingly.