The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to award compensation for loss of income due to damage to property under Section 110 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act.

( 1 ) THESE ten appeals are presented by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation against the common Judgment and separate awards made on ten claim petitions presented under Section 110-A of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, mandya.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are these: On 23-2-1981 at about 5-30 P. M. Tourist bus belonging to sonar Roadways, Cannanore was coming from Cannanore, to Bangalore and was plying near channegowdanadoddi near Maddur, on Bangalore Mysore Road. A bus belonging to the appellant Corporation was proceeding towards Mysore from Bangalore. Accident occurred at about 5-30 P. M. near Channegowdanadoddi when there was head on collision between the red colour bus belonging to the Corporation and the green colour bus belonging to Sonar Roadways (hereinafter referred to as "the Red Bus" and 'the Green Bus' respectively for convenience ). There were as many 'as 12 claim petitions presented by individuals either by the injured or the legal representative of the persons died as a result of the accident as also a petition by Sonar roadways claiming compensation in respect of the damages caused to the green bus by the accident. The first issue which arose in all the petitions and was common to all the claim petitions was, whether the accident occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the red bus belonging to the Corporation. Rejecting the plea of the Corporation that the accident occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the green bus by its driver or that the accident occurred on account of the contributory negligence of both the drivers, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the red bus by Its driver. After recording the said finding, the Tribunal proceeded to determine the quantum of compensation to be awarded in each of the claim petition and determined the compensation payable to the claimants in each of the petitions. Aggrieved by the Judgment and award made by the Tribunal, the Corporation has preferred these ten appeals. No appeal has been preferred in other two cases and that the learned Counsel for the Corporation explained that the compensation awarded in those two cases was small and therefore, the Corporation did not consider it appropriate to file appeals in those two cases also.

( 3 ) IN these appeals, the learned Counsel for the appellant-Corporation has urged the following contentions:

(1) The finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle belonging to the Corporation by its driver was erroneous.

(2) In M. V. C. 73 of 81 out of which M. F. A. 426/86 arises, the Tribunal had awarded compensation towards loss of income during the period when the green bus was under repair though the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to award compensation regarding loss of income and even if it had the jurisdiction to award compensation for loss of income, the compensation awarded at the rate Rs. 1,000/- per day for 180 days was excessive and arbitrary;

( 4 ) ELABORATING the first contention the learned Counsel for the Corporation submitted as follows: from the evidence on record, it is clear that the collision between the two buses took place on the middle of the Road. When an accident takes place as a result of collision of two vehicles on the middle of the Road, the inference that should be drawn is that the accident, occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles.

( 5 ) SRI Chinnappa, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the question as to whether, an accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of any particular vehicle even in a case of collision between the two vehicles, always depends upon the evidence on record. He submitted that in the present case, the finding recorded by the Tribunal was-justified for the fo