The court emphasized the duty of the driver not to halt the bus on a road in a dangerous position and to be present in the bus when stopped on the road. The court upheld the compensation awarded for personal injury and damages to the property as conservative.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is instituted by the KSRTC, against the judgment and oward d 18-11-1975 passed in MYC No. 10 of 1969, on the file of the Accidents Claims Tribunal No. I, Belglum.

( 2 ) ON 2-2-1969 at about 2 a. m the ST. bus bearing no. MYF 4025 belonging to KSRTC, was stationed by its driver near Ugargpl Naka on saundatti Yellamma Hills in a slope unattended. The bus suddenly started moving and dashed againsit a tea stall causing considerable damage to the stall and resulting in the fraciture of the shoulder bone of the claimant. The claimant got himself treated in the hospital and presented, the claim petition to the Tribunal on, 22-3-69 claiming compensation of Rs. 15,000, both for injuries sustained and the damages caused to thei property. The respondent-1 the KSRTC resisted the claim on the ground that the bus moved down the slope as its gear gqt released and as such it could not be said that the accident arose in the use of the motor vehicle or due to the negligence of the driver. In that way, it submitted that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. It also contended that claim with regard to the properties was not maintainable before the Tribunal. Alternatively, the KSRTC, asserted thajt thq claim was excessive. The second respondent in the petition, adopted the statement of objections filed by mfa. 355 of 1976. the first respondent. The third respondent-Insurance Coy contended that the vehicle was not insured with it during the relevant period. On these pleadings, the Tribunal raised the following issues : (1) Whether the applicant proves that the accident oecurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver - opponent No. 2 of MSRTC bus bearing No. MYF 4025? (2) Whether all or any of the opponents are liable to pay compensation, and if so, what amount? (3) Whether the Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application?

( 3 ) DURING hearing, the claimant examined himself as PW. 1 and examined in support of his claim another witness. As against that the respondents examined the driver of the vehicle as DW. 1, and closed their case the Tribunal appreciating the evidence on record held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the claim, that the accident was the result of rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus and in that view awarded compensation of Rs. 3,000 towards the injuries sustained by the claimant and rs. 927 towards damages caused to the property by its judgment and award referred to above Aggrieved by the said award, the KSRTC has coma up in appeal before this Court.

( 4 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the tribunal was not justified in entertaining the claim petition as it could not be said that the accident occurred in the use of the motor vehicle. According to him, the award was more on the liberal side. As against that, the learned Advocate for the respondent-1 in this appeal submitted that the compensation awarded was on the conservative side and that the tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the, claim and decide the quantum of compensation. We were taken through the evidence on record. The points that arise for our consideration are : (1) Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition on the facts of this case? (2) Whether the cempensation awarded is just and proper? sec. 110 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act states that a State Govt may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims. Tribunals, for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both: Thus, the Tribunal gets jurisdiction, to adjudicate upon the claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death or bodily injury, out of the us