JUDGMENT PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR, J. 1. This appeal by the NWKRTC under Section 173(1) of the M.V. Act is against the judgment and award dated 11.01.2007 in M.V.C. No. 74 of 2003 on the file of the Additional M.A.C.T. Sirsi. 2. On 06.11.2000, at about 4.00 p.m. the bus bearing registration No. KA-31/F-423 belonging to the appellant while proceeding from Karwar to Bijapur was hit by another bus bearing registration No. KA-29/2610 belonging to respondent No. 1 Chandrashekar Hadli and insured with respondent No. 2 New India Insurance Co. Ltd. As a result of the impact, the NWKSRTC bus was substantially damaged. The appellant-NWKSRTC spent an amount of Rs. 27,759/- for its repair. The bus was kept idle for 12 days on account of repair and thereby the appellant lost earnings at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per day. As such, claiming compensation of Rs. 69,759/- the appellant put forth a claim under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. 3. The claim was contested by the respondent-New India Assurance Co. Ltd. It came up for consideration before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by impugned judgment and award, awarded a compensation of Rs. 15,000/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, this appeal is preferred by the appellant-NWKSRTC on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head less of earnings. 4. I have heard both the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-NWKSRTC and respondent-insurance company. Perused the records. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-KSRTC would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head loss of earnings during the period of repair, though the bus was idle for 12 days on account of repair. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company, on the other hand would submit that the Tribunal upon proper appreciation of the evidence placed of record has rightly awarded the compensation of Rs. 15,000/- which is just and reasonable. 7. Having heard the submissions of both the learned counsel appearing for appellant-NWKSRTC and respondent-insurance company, the point that arises for my determination is as under:- "Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?" 8. It is not in dispute that the NWKSRTC bus was damaged in the said accident. 15,000/- which is just and reasonable. 7. Having heard the submissions of both the learned counsel appearing for appellant-NWKSRTC and respondent-insurance company, the point that arises for my determination is as under:- "Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?" 8. It is not in dispute that the NWKSRTC bus was damaged in the said accident. Exs.P-5 to P-8 are Bedike Needike Patra. Exs.P-9 & P-10 are job card. These documents show that the some of the parts were replaced during the course of repair. The bus was repaired by the mechanic working in Sirsi depot by spending a sum of Rs. 27,759/-. The Tribunal has also observed in para 14 of the judgment that the bus was substantially damaged. Even then, the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs. 15,000/- without any basis. Though documentary evidence placed on record by the appellant to show that an amount of Rs. 27,759/- has been spent towards repair, there was no reason for the Tribunal to award Rs. 15,000/-. As such, the appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs. 27,759/- for having spent the said amount towards repair. 9. It is not in dispute that the bus was kept idle on account of repair for a period of 12 days. Having regard to the nature of damage caused to the bus, it appeals to me that it ought to have taken hardly 5-6 days for repair of the bus and the Tribunal ought to have awarded the loss of earnings at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per day for 5 to 6 days. As such it would be just and proper on my part to award idle charges at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per day for a period of 6 days which comes to Rs. 21,000/-. So an amount of Rs. 21,000/- is awarded towards idle charges. 10. Thus, the appellant-NWKSRTC has been held to be entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 48,759/- as against Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There shall be an enhancement of Rs. 33,759/-. Accordingly, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The judgment and award dated 11.01.2007 passed in M.V.C. No. 74 of 2003 by the Additional M.A.C.T. Sirsi stands modified. The appellant-claimant has been awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs. 48,759/- as against Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There shall be an enhancement of Rs. 33,759/-. Accordingly, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The judgment and award dated 11.01.2007 passed in M.V.C. No. 74 of 2003 by the Additional M.A.C.T. Sirsi stands modified. The appellant-claimant has been awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs. 33,759/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal together with 6% interest thereon from the date of petition till the date of realisation. (iii) The respondent-insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount together with interest within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. In the event of deposit, the enhanced compensation shall be released to the appellant- claimant.