The court emphasized the assessment of negligence in the accident, the proper calculation of the claimant's monthly income, and the disallowance of deduction for ex gratia payment.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is instituted under Sec. HOD of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by original respondent No. 1, the General Manager, Karnataka State road Transport Corporation, Bangalore, and is directed against the judgment and award dated 30-1-1976 passed in Mis. (MVC) NO. 54 of 72 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dharwar.

( 2 ) THE original petitionerkwaja Hussain Shaiksab Bellaryhas filed cross objections raising the plea 'that the Tribunal was not justified in deducting Rs. 7,000, he received as exgratia payment from ESSO Company and has further submitted that the loss of future income calculated by the Tribunal is unreasonably low.

( 3 ) THE facts leading up to the present appeal and cross-objections are these: kwaja Hussain Shaiksab Bellary instituted an, application for compensation under Sec. 110a of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for the personal injuries sustained by him as a result of the Motor accident that occurred on 25-3-1973 on Gadag-Hubli Road, 5 miles away from Hubli. According to him he was driving the tanker belonging to the ESSO Company from gadag towards Hubli when the driver of a K. S. R. T. C. bus coming from Hubli in a rash and negligent manner came on the off side of the road and dashed against his tanker causing him grievous injuries. He has averred in %e petition that he suffered fracture of the chest bone, fracture of the right shoulder, fracture of skull, fracture of right forearm and injury to the left eye. On these averments he has claimed Rs. 25,000 from respondents as compensation. The respondent No. 1 was the General Manager, k. S. R. T. C. and respondent No. 2 was the driver of the K. S. R. T. C. bus in question. Respondent No. 1 resisted the claim by filing statement of objections on 25-11-1972. He denied that the concerned K. S. R. T. C. bus was driven by respondent NO. 2 in a rash and negligent manner. He denied that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the K. S. R. T. C bus driver. He alternatively affirmed that the earning mentioned by the petitioner was not correct and that the compensation claimed by him was excessive and exaggerated. Respondent No. 2 was subsequently given up as unnecessary party. On these pleadings, the Tribunal raised the following issues: (1) Does the petitioner prove that he sustained injuries as a result of the accident that happened on 25-3-1972 on Gadag Hubli road, 5 miles away from Hubli? (2) Does he further prove that the said accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the K. S. R. T. C. bus bearing No 5057 as alleged? (3) Whether the respondent proves that the petitioner is guilty of contributory negligence in causing the accident in question? (4) To what compensation if any and from whom is petitioner entitled? (5) Does respondent prove that he is not liable to pay the compensation for the reasons in para 4 of the statement of his objection? (6) Does the respondent further prove that the application is not tenable for the reasons stated in para 12 of his statement of objections? (7) What award?

( 4 ) DURING hearing, the petitioner examined four witnesses including himself. PW. 1 is the petitioner. PW. 3 Abinajar Bansod is an eye witness he was travelling in the ESSO tanker. PW. 2 Gosavi Vaman Dattatreya is the Deputy Superintendent of the ESSO Coy who has spoken to the salary of the petitioner. PW. 4 Srini'vasa Bidi is the Asst Surgeon attached to the KMC. Hospital, Hubli, who examined the injured He has issued the injury certificate Ext. P2. Against that respondent-1 examined two witnesses on his behalf. DW. 1 Abdul Rahaman Hebballi is a motor mechanic who claims to be the eye witness to the accident DW 2 Raghavendra venkatarao Koulagi is the photographer who has taken the photos of the KSRTC bus after the accident.

( 5 ) THE Tribunal after assessing the evidence on record found that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus and that the injuries suffered by the petitione