JUDGMENT Saral Srivastava, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant-U.P.S.R.T.C. has preferred the present appeal challenging the award dated 27.04.2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Bulandshaher (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') passed in M.A.C.P. No.145 of 1998 whereby Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,10,000/- along with 10% interest as compensation to the claimants/respondents. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was a case of false implication of offending vehicle namely Bus No.U.P.-14-A-8335 inasmuch as no eye witness was produced by the claimants/respondents to prove the accident, and further, neither the postmortem of the deceased was conducted nor any F.I.R. was lodged in respect to the alleged accident. Accordingly, it is submitted that Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the alleged accident had taken place by the offending vehicle. It is further contended that deceased was bachelor and therefore, Tribunal should have deducted half towards personal expenses of the deceased in place of 1/3rd. 4. Be that as it may, the Tribunal in concluding that the accident had taken place by the offending vehicle has placed reliance upon the testimony of P.W.2 Harvir Singh, who was an eye witness of the accident. Though the appellant produced Ravjendra Prasad as D.W.1, who was driver of the offending bus, but the Tribunal disbelieved the testimony of D.W.1. In the opinion of the Court, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that testimony of P.W.2 is consistent and there was no contradiction in the statement of P.W.2. The Tribunal further disbelieved the testimony of D.W.1 and in the opinion of the Court, the Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the testimony of D.W.1, who was driver of the offending vehicle and employee of appellant-U.P.S.R.T.C. and being employee of appellant, he could not give testimony against his employer. 5. In such view of the fact, this Court does not find any illegality committed by the Tribunal in deciding the issue in respect of involvement of offending vehicle in the accident. 6. 5. In such view of the fact, this Court does not find any illegality committed by the Tribunal in deciding the issue in respect of involvement of offending vehicle in the accident. 6. So far as the issue of quantification of compensation is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant is right that deceased was bachelor, and therefore, Tribunal should have deducted half towards personal expenses of the deceased, but in a recent judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and another v. Shaym Kishore Murmu and another (2022) 1 SCC 317 the Apex Court has awarded Rs.4,70,000/- as compensation in the case of death of a minor. 7. Since in the instant case, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,10,000/-, therefore, in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari (supra), this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantification of compensation as it is the bounden duty of the court to award just and fair compensation. 8. Accordingly, appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.