K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.— The petitioner-claimant as also respondents 1 and 2 in MVC No. 2130/2001, on the file of the Additional MACT, Saundatti, are in appeal before this Court. The petitioner-claimant is dissatisfied whereas respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In both these appeals, as the respective appellants have questioned the correctness of the same judgment and award, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The parties herein will be referred to with reference to their ranking before the Tribunal.

3. The petitioner-claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for the personal injuries said to have been sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that occurred at about 7.00 P.M. on 5.5.1997.

4. The case of the petitioner in brief is as under;

That on 5.5.1997 at about 4.30 P.M. he boarded a KSRTC Bus at Yeragatti, to go to Ramdurg. When the said bus came near Chandargi village, another KSRTC Bus bearing No. KA 25 F-811 running from Shaktinagar to Belgaum, came from opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus in which the petitioner was travelling. As a result, he sustained injuries to his forearm and index finger. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Katakol, wherein first aid treatment was given to him and thereafter he was referred to Dr. Y.B. Kulgod Hospital, Ramdurg, who in turn referred the petitioner to Dr. Mahantesh Hooli, Orthopedic Surgeon, Saundatti. During treatment, it was noticed that the petitioner has sustained fracture of forearm. Inspite of best treatment, the petitioner has suffered permanent disability in his right forearm, which has affected his future earning. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate in High Court and on account of the disability, he is unable to carry on his profession as he was doing earlier.

5. Upon service of notice, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared through their learned Counsel and contested the petition.

6. In the objections, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 denied all the petition averments and called upon the petitioner to prove the same. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 denied the allegation that there was collision between two KSRTC buses. They denied the averment regarding the nature of injuries said to have been sustained by the petitioner. They also denied the allegation regarding the income of the petitioner and also the disability said to have been suffered by him. They contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues;

i) Whether the petitioner proves that he/she has sustained bodily injuries in the Motor vehicle accident that occurred on 5.5.1997 at about 1900 hours on Belgaum-Bagalkot road, 1 Km away towards Western side of the K. Chandragi village on account of rash and negligent driving of KSRTC bus bearing No. KA 25-F-811 by its driver?

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so to what amount and from whom?

iii) What Award?

8. During trial, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and examined one Dr. Basavaraj Hanamantappa Dodamani who is stated to have issued the disability certificate as PW.2. He got marked Exs.P.1 to P.21. On the other hand, respondents did not lead any evidence either oral or documentary.

9. After hearing both sides, the learned Member of the Tribunal by his judgment under appeal dated 30.6.2005 held that there was collision between two KSRTC buses near Chandragi village at 7.00 P.M. on 5.5.1997 and that the said accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of KSRTC bus bearing No. KA 25 F-811 by its driver. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal answered issue No. 1 in the affirmative.

10. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal on the basis of the e