JUDGMENT V. Srishananda, J. - Nwkrtc Corporation is before this court questioning the validity of the common judgment and award dated 29.04.2015 in MVC Nos.23/2014 and 24/2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Ron in these appeals i.e., MFA Nos.102201/2015 and 102202/2015. 2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as under : A claim petition came to be filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act by the wife, daughter and parents of one Suresh, who died in a road traffic accident occurred on 11.01.2014 involving a Mahindra Maxicab bearing registration No.KA-28/TR-5393 and KSRTC bearing No.KA-42/F-536. 3. Another claim petition filed by the owner of the Mahindra maxicab bearing No.KA-28/TR-5393 seeking damages caused to her vehicle. It is contended in the claim petition in MVC No.23/2014 that on 11.01.2014 Suresh Bhimappa Hulagannavar was proceeding in the above said Mahindra Maxicab from Badami to Belur village and when he passed near high school at Cholachagudda at about 7.00 p.m., at that juncture a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-42/F-536 came in rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and dashed against the Maxicab, whereby Suresh sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. It is also contended that Mahindra Maxicab was totally damaged and as such, the claim petitions were lodged for compensation by the dependants of the said Suresh as well as owner of the Maxicab in the above referred claim petitions. 4. On issuance of the notices, respondents appeared and 1st respondent filed its statement of objection denying the claim petition averments as well as petition seeking to the damages Maxicab vehicle. It is further contended that an old lady suddenly came in front of KSRTC bus and in the process of saving the old lady, bus was steered to the side where Maxi cab was moving and thus resulted in the accident and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petitions. 5. Based on the rival contentions urged by the parties, the tribunal raised the following issues. Issues in MVC No.23/2014 1. Whether the petitioner proves that, on 11.01.2014 at about 7.00 p.m. Suresh Hulagannavar was travelling in Maxi Cab bearing Reg.No.KA-28/TR-5393 and when vehicle was passing near Cholachagudda High School at Badami, the driver of the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-42/F-536 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed bus to Maxi-Cab and thereby caused the death of Suresh? Whether the petitioner proves that, on 11.01.2014 at about 7.00 p.m. Suresh Hulagannavar was travelling in Maxi Cab bearing Reg.No.KA-28/TR-5393 and when vehicle was passing near Cholachagudda High School at Badami, the driver of the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-42/F-536 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed bus to Maxi-Cab and thereby caused the death of Suresh? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If yes, from which of the respondents? Issues in MVC No.24/2014 1. Whether the petitioner proves that, on 11.01.2014 at about 7-00 p.m. her Maxi Cab bearing Reg.No.KA-28/TR-5393 got damaged by the rash and negligent driving of KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-42/F-536 by its driver near Cholachagudda High School at Badami? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If yes, from which of the respondents? 6. Tribunal answered the above issue No.1 in the affirmative in both the cases and issue No.2 in the affirmative in both the cases. 7. In order to prove the claim petitions, the 1st petitioner in MVC No.23/2014 namely Basamma who is wife of Suresh got examined as PW1 and owner of Maxicab namely Yallamma got examined as PW2 and eye witness to the accident by name Achut Patil got examined as PW3. On behalf of claimants, as many as 16 documents were produced and marked as Ex.P1 to 16. On behalf of respondents the driver of the KSRTC bus was examined as RW1. 8. On cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed before it, the tribunal allowed the claim petitions and granted the compensation in a sum of Rs.15,53,000/- in MVC No.23/2014 and a sum of Rs.3,80,978/- in MVC No.24/2014 as under : In MVC No.23/2014 1 Loss of income 14,58,000/- 2 Consortium 50,000/- 3 Funeral expenses 25,000/- 4 Loss of estate 20,000/- TOTAL 15,53,000/- In MVC No.24/2014 Replacement of damaged parts of the vehicle 3,80,978/- 9. It is that judgment which is challenged by the NWKRTC in these appeals. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant- Corporation I.C. Patil, vehemently contended that the accident has not occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. It is his contention that in order to save the life of the old lady, who suddenly came on the road in front of the KSRTC bus, the driver of the bus had to steer the bus and dashed to the Maxicab, resulting in accident. It is his contention that in order to save the life of the old lady, who suddenly came on the road in front of the KSRTC bus, the driver of the bus had to steer the bus and dashed to the Maxicab, resulting in accident. Therefore, attributing negligence on the part of the driver of the bus is wholly incorrect and sought for allowing the appeals. 11. The learned counsel also contends that the oral testimony of driver of the bus, is totally ignored by the tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award and therefore, sought interference in these appeals. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant- Corporation further submitted that the quantum of compensation arrived at by the tribunal is on higher side and sought for reduction of the same by allowing the appeals. 13. Per contra, Sri. Deepak C. Mananur, learned counsel for the respondents-owner of the Maxicab submits that the judgment and award passed by the tribunal is just and proper and based on cogent evidence, the tribunal allowed the petitions, which needs no interference. Thus, prays for dismissal of the appeals. 14. In view of the rival contentions urged by the parties, the following point would arise for consideration is: 1. Whether the appellant-NWKRTC has made out a case for interference with the judgment and award passed by the tribunal ? 15. Answer to the above point is in the negative for the following REASONS 16. It is not in dispute in these appeals that the Mahindra Maxicab bearing No.KA-28/TR-5393 was proceeding from Badami to Belur and when it reached near high school at Cholachagudda met with an accident with the bus bearing No.KA-42/F-536 in which RW1 was the driver and the Maxicab got damaged to a great extent so also the driver of the Maxicab namely Shankar. The driver of the Maxicab sustained grievous injuries and thereafter he succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. 17. The driver of the bus, who is examined as RW1 has stated in his examination in chief that there is no negligence on his part and there was negligence on the part of the driver of the Maxicab, whereas, in the written statement filed by the corporation, as is clearly mentioned at para No.4 of the judgment that in order to save an old lady who crossed the road suddenly, the accident has taken place. 18. 18. The Police after investigating the incident, have charge sheeted the driver of the bus. Neither the driver nor the corporation challenged the filing of the charge sheet. 19. On record, we have perused oral testimony of PW1 as against RW1 that means there is oath against the oath and no independent witnesses are examined, like passenger of the bus or conductor of the bus. As such testimony of RW1 to be treated as self serving testimony. 20. In the backdrop of the tribunal proceeded to rely upon the Police investigation papers and took note of filing of the charge sheet against RW1, has came to the conclusion that the rash and negligent driving of the bus which resulted in the accident. 21. On record, there is no contra material available so as to form a different opinion. The learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out from records that finding recorded by the tribunal is perverse or vexacious or suffering from legal infirmities. 22. Thus, even after reappreciation of the entire material on record, we do not find any good grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the tribunal in holding that the accident has occurred on account of the driver of the bus, who is examined as RW1. 23. Further it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation that the quantum of compensation granted by the tribunal is on the higher side. The accident has occurred in the year 2014. The tribunal has assessed the income at Rs.6,000/- per month. In the absence of cogent evidence to establish the income, this court and Lok Adalaths, in such cases would normally assess the monthly income notionally at Rs.7,500/-. Compared to that, the amount assessed by the tribunal is far less. As such we need not interfere with said finding. 24. In the absence of appeal filed by the claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation, we don't want to disturb the finding recorded by the tribunal with regard to quantum of compensation, the assessment of award for a sum of Rs.15,53,000/- by the tribunal in MVC No.23/2014. 25. So also with regard to damages to the Maxi cab, the photographs produced at Ex.P16 clearly establishes the extent of damages caused to the Maxicab vehicle. 26. 25. So also with regard to damages to the Maxi cab, the photographs produced at Ex.P16 clearly establishes the extent of damages caused to the Maxicab vehicle. 26. Further, having regard to the fact that the vehicle was purchased on 26.12.2013 and accident was occurred on 11.01.2014, the vehicle in question was a brand new vehicle. Ex.P11 is the document which is produced by the claimant, which is service quotation of M/s. Bhagirathi Automobiles. MVI report marked vide Ex.P7 clearly enunciate the extent of damages caused to the Maxicab vehicle in question. 27. Taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, the tribunal has recorded the finding that the claimant in MVC No.24/2014 was entitled to a sum of Rs.3,80,978/- towards damages. 28. On record, we do not find any serious infirmity in tribunal in assessing the damages in a sum of Rs.3,80,978/- in MVC No.24/2014. 29. When once the tribunal recorded the finding that it is the driver of the offending bus who is responsible for the accident, it goes without saving that damages are to be paid by the driver of the offending bus exclusively, the tribunal assessing the damages at Rs.3,80,978/- in our considered opinion does not call for interference. 30. In view of the foregoing discussions, we find that the appellants have not made out a good case to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the tribunal and accordingly, point is answered in the negative. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER Appeals stand bereft of merits and hence are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the tribunal.