JUDGMENT V. Srishananda, J. - The Insurance Company not being satisfied with the common judgment and award dated 29.06.2018 passed in MVC No.1002/2015 clubbed with MVC No.1003/2015 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short). This appeal is restricted only to the judgment and award passed in MVC No.1002/2015. 2. Germane facts for disposal of this appeal are as under: The wife and children of deceased Shantaram filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act alleging that on 12.06.2014 at about 11.00 a.m., when Shantaram was proceeding along with his son on a motorcycle bearing No.KA-25/S-8657 from Alnavar towards Dharwad, near Prabhunagar cross of Alnavar, a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-29/F-865 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of Shantaram resulting in rider of the motorcycle i.e. Shantarama and his son who was the pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries and were shifted to KIMS hospital, Hubballi. It is further contended that despite best treatment, the rider of the motorcycle/Shantaram died on 07.07.2014 in KIMS hospital, Hubballi. It is further contended that the deceased Shantaram was serving in KSRTC bus as a driver and was getting salary of Rs.28,759/- and since the claimants have lost the bread earner of the family, they filed claim petition seeking compensation. In pursuance to the notice issued in the claim petition, respondent/Corporation appeared before the Tribunal and filed written statement denying the entire claim petition averments. It is further contended that the accident has occurred on the sole negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and the complaint was lodged by the driver of the bus and case came to be registered against the rider of the motorcycle and as such, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. In order to prove the accident, the wife of deceased Shantaram was examined as P.W.1 and pillion rider of the motorcycle/Shivaraj, who is the claimant in MVC No.1003/2015 got examined himself as P.W.2. On behalf of the claimants, 14 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.14. On behalf of the respondent, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were placed before the Tribunal by the respondent/corporation. On behalf of the claimants, 14 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.14. On behalf of the respondent, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were placed before the Tribunal by the respondent/corporation. After hearing the parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence cumulatively, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation in MVC No.1002/2015 as under: 1. Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- 3. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- 4. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 5. Loss of dependency with future prospects Rs.32,75,048/- 6. Medical expenditure Rs.5,587/- Total Rs.34,50,635/- 3. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the rider of the motorcycle is responsible for the accident and thus, attributed contributory negligence at 30% on the rider of the motorcycle and 70% on the driver of the bus. 4. It is that judgment which is under challenge in this appeal. 5. The learned counsel Sri. S. C. Bhuti, appearing for appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have allowed the claim petition in view of the clear and categorical evidence placed on record by the driver of the offending bus, who as examined as R.W.1. He further contended that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration that the charge sheet came to be filed against the rider of the motorcycle and as such, the impugned judgment and award is erroneous and sought for allowing the appeal. 6. He further contended that the IMV report marked before the Tribunal at Ex.P.6 shows that scratch marks on the right side of rear right wheel and remaining all parts are in order in respect of offending bus but in respect of the motorcycle damages are in plenty as is mentioned in Ex.P.6. He further contended that Ex.P.6/IMV report has not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal. 7. Lastly the learned counsel for appellant contends that the salary certificate that was produced by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased was of much prior to the date of the accident, as admittedly the deceased was dismissed from service and therefore, the monthly income should not have been assessed on the basis of salary certificates marked at Ex.P.7 and 8. He also submits that the Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.1,70,000/- on conventional heads without considering the legal principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 , and as such sought for allowing the appeal. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel, Sri. S. M. Kalawad, appearing for the respondent contended that the Tribunal has taken cumulative view of the entire evidence placed on record and came to the right conclusion. 9. He further contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and requires no interference and none of the grounds urged in the appeal are having merits and thus, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 10. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the point that would arise for our consideration is as under: "Whether the appellant has made out sufficient grounds to allow the appeal?" 11. We answer the above point in the negative for the following: REASONS 12. The main ground on which the appellant is seeking interference of this Court that the charge-sheet, which is marked at Ex.P.3 and the IMV report marked at Ex.P.6 are not properly considered by the Tribunal, especially when the driver of the bus (R.W.1) is the complainant in the present case. 13. In the complaint, which is marked at Ex.P.2, it has been mentioned that since the road near Honnapur is a curved road, he was driving the bus slowly but the rider of the motorcycle came from Honnapur to Dharwad side in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the motorcycle and came in front of the bus and in order to avoid the accident, he steered the bus to the left side and at that juncture, the rider of the motorcycle dashed on the right side of the bus. 14. He also examined himself before the Tribunal as R.W.1 and in his examination-in-chief he has reiterated the contents of Ex.P.2/complaint. In his cross-examination, he has answered that the rider of the motorcycle was under the influence of liquor and the same is mentioned in Ex.P.2/complaint. 15. R.W.1 admits that he saw the motorcycle, which was coming from the opposite direction. To a specific question, what prevented him to avoid the accident, R.W.1 answered that the accident did not occur on account of his fault. 15. R.W.1 admits that he saw the motorcycle, which was coming from the opposite direction. To a specific question, what prevented him to avoid the accident, R.W.1 answered that the accident did not occur on account of his fault. This oral evidence of R.W.1 coupled with oral evidence of P.W.2, who was injured in the very same accident and claimant in MVC No.1003/2014 and having regard to the time of accident, which took place at 11.00 a.m. there was every possibility that the accident could have been avoided, especially when it has taken place at 11.00 a.m. 16. Further, as could be seen from Ex.P.3/chargesheet, though R.W.1 is the complainant, the police have charge-sheeted the rider of the motorcycle as well as the driver of the bus i.e. R.W.1. 17. It is needless to emphasize that the police have thoroughly investigated the matter and also taken into account the evidentiary value that can be attached to Ex.P.6/IMV report and have charge-sheeted R.W.1 also in the case. 18. R.W.1 and the corporation, for the reasons best known to them, did not challenge the charge-sheet filed by the police. All these factors even after re-appreciation, would only indicate that there was negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle (deceased) and R.W.1/the driver of the bus which ultimately resulted in accident. 19. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal recording a finding that the accident has occurred on account of negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider as well as the driver of bus/R.W.1, attributing contributory negligence at 30% on the rider of the motorcycle and 70% on the driver of the bus/R.W.1, in our considered opinion, does not call for interference. 20. As a feeble attempt, R.W.1 in his examination-inchief, tried to impress upon the Court stating that the rider of the motorcycle was under the influence of alcohol but in the complaint lodged by him, there is no mention that the rider of the motorcycle was under the influence of alcohol. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that as an after thought, in order to escape the rigors of law, R.W.1 has taken up the contention that the rider of the motorcycle was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that as an after thought, in order to escape the rigors of law, R.W.1 has taken up the contention that the rider of the motorcycle was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. Thus, in the absence of no other materials to support such contention, the doctor who conducted autopsy did not mention in autopsy report regarding presence of alcohol content in the body of the deceased. The contention taken by R.W.1 in his examination-in-chief should be considered as self-serving testimony and therefore, cannot be countenanced in law. 21. No other ground is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant either to hold that the driver of the bus/R.W.1 was totally innocent and the accident solely occurred on account of rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider (deceased) himself. 22. None of the grounds urged by the learned counsel for appellant would merit consideration to hold that the accident in question has occurred solely on account of rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider (deceased). 23. On the question of quantum, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that the deceased was dismissed from service and therefore, Tribunal was wrong in taking into consideration the salary certificates produced and marked at Ex.P.7 and 8, dated 07th February 2013 and 07th July 2013 respectively. 24. It is also contended that the Tribunal has erroneously ordered Rs.1,70,000/- on conventional heads, which is oppose to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case. Insofar as evidentiary value of Ex.P.7 and 8 is concerned, in the oral evidence of P.W.1, it was suggested that the deceased was not in employment as on the date of the accident, but the said suggestion was denied by P.W.1. Further it was suggested that the KSRTC has already settled the entire retirement benefits to the deceased, but the same was also denied by P.W.1. 25. The date of accident is 12.06.2014. Ex.P.7 and 8 are pertaining to the month of February-2013 and July- 2013. In the appeal grounds, it has been mentioned by the appellant that though the deceased was dismissed from service, later on the dismissal order was set-aside. No other documentary evidence is placed on record to show that the deceased was dismissed and was not drawing any salary. Ex.P.7 and 8 are pertaining to the month of February-2013 and July- 2013. In the appeal grounds, it has been mentioned by the appellant that though the deceased was dismissed from service, later on the dismissal order was set-aside. No other documentary evidence is placed on record to show that the deceased was dismissed and was not drawing any salary. The Tribunal, while dealing with the said contention of the corporation, has taken into consideration the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court in KID No.103/2014 dated 19.11.2015 in respect of dismissal order passed by the corporation. In the said order, it is crystal clear that the petition filed seeking setting aside of dismissal order of deceased from his service was allowed in part. The Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court observed in his order that since the claimant i.e. Shantaram (deceased) was dead by the time, the final order came to be passed and the legal representatives of Shantaram were entitled to receive monitory terminal benefits from the corporation. On record, there is nothing to show that the said order of the Labour Court was challenged by the Corporation. 26. In other words, the finding recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court setting aside the dismissal order has become final and therefore, we do not find serious infirmities in the finding recorded by the Tribunal in assessing the monthly income of the deceased based on the last drawn salary certificate, which were marked at Ex.P.7 and 8. 27. The next ground on which the appellant has challenged the order of the Tribunal is that the Tribunal erred in law in awarding Rs.1,70,000/- on conventional heads as against the legal principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case. We find that there is some force in the said submission made on behalf of the appellant/corporation, but on the contrary it is also seen from the records that the deceased left behind his wife, one major son and two minor children but the Tribunal did not grant any amount towards parental consortium to the minor children as he held in Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd vs. Nanu Ram and others, (2018) ACJ 2782 . In view of the above, we feel that the amount awarded by the Tribunal on conventional heads though little excessive, does not call for interference. 28. In view of the above, we feel that the amount awarded by the Tribunal on conventional heads though little excessive, does not call for interference. 28. In view of the foregoing reasons, we answer the above point in negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER Appeal sans no merit and hence dismissed. No order as to costs. The amount in deposit, if any, made by the corporation shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.