1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Corporation being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and MACT, Beluru in MVC No.1477/2008 dated 8.12.2015.

2. Heard. Appeal is admitted. With the consent of the leaned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that :

On 25.05.2014 at about 6.00 a.m., Raghu Chakravarthi and others by hiring a tempo traveler bearing Registration No.KA-01-AB-9739 were proceeding and after finishing the tour programme, they were returned at about 11.30 p.m. and when the said vehicle came near Maragowdanahalli Gate, at that time, a KSRTC Bus bearing Regn. No.KA-42-F-728 came rashly and negligently and dashed against the said tempo traveler and as a result of the same, the said Raghu Chakravarthy and others sustained injuries and thereafter he was shifted to Government Hospital, Mandya and there he was treated and subsequently on 10.6.2014, he succumbed to the injuries. It is the contention of the father of deceased that the deceased was hale and healthy and was doing coolie work and was earning Rs.10,000/-p.m. For having lost the bread earner, the claimant has filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation.

4. In pursuance to the notice, respondent Corporation filed its written statement by denying the contents of the petition. It is contended that the alleged accident has taken place due to fault of driver of tempo traveler and he was not having driving license at the time of accident and as such the Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Respondent No.2 also appeared and filed its objection by denying contents of the petition. He further contended that the alleged accident has taken place due to fault of driver of KSRTC bus. He further contended that charge sheet has also been filed as against the driver of KSRTC bus. He is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Respondent No.3 though appeared has not filed objection.

7. After considering the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the necessary issues. In order to prove the case of the claimant, he got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11 and driver of KSRTC bus came to be examined as RW1 and no document has been produced and other respondents have not led any evidence.

8. After hearing the parties to the lis, the impugned judgment and award came to be passed. Assailing the same, the Corporation is before this Court.

9. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant are that during the course of cross-examination, PW2 has clearly admitted the fact that the alleged accident has taken place due to fault of drivers of both vehicles and the Tribunal without considering the said fact fixed the liability on the appellant/ Corporation. He further contended that the compensation awarded is also on the higher side. By taking into consideration the future prospects, the deceased was not having any settled income. On these grounds, he prayed for allowing the appeal by reducing the compensation.

10. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that during the course of cross-examination, PW2 has admitted that both the drivers of the vehicles have contributed to the alleged accident. As could be seen from the records and the findings given by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the evidence and materials on record and has come to the right conclusion by holding that the alleged accident has taken place due to fault on the part of driver of KSRTC bus and in that light, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant do not survive for consideration and the same is rejected.

11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/claimant vehemently argued by contending that the deceased was doing coolie work and was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. But the Tribunal by t