The main legal point established in the judgment is that Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals have limited jurisdiction under S.110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and they cannot award compensation for loss of profit from a vehicle involved in an accident.

1. The 1st respondent in Motor Accidents Claim No. 224 of 1981 before the MACT, Manjeri, namely the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, is the appellant The respondent is the petitioner in the said claim. She is the Proprietress of Ramanadkara Transport and the owner of bus No. KLM. 765. Bus No. KRT 6024 owned by the appellant and driven by the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal, dashed against the respondent's bus in front of Munniyoor Panchayat office. The respondent's bus was extensively damaged. A claim was filed before the Tribunal under S.110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, .1939 as amended by Act. 56 of 1969 for compensation under the following heads:

Under column 28 of the claim petition, among other things, it was stated as follows:

"The applicant's bus had to be garaged for repairs till 10-4-1979. The bus was put on the road only on 12-4-1979. The repairer's bill came to Rs.49,918/- including cost of spare parts. The insurer has sanctioned only an amount of Rs. 24,000/-. The applicant had to bear Rs.25,918/- from her pocket towards repair charges. She lost an amount of Rs. 38,400/- being loss of Collection from 22-2-1979 to 10-4-1979 at the rate of Rs. 800/- per day. The accident occurred solely due to the rashness and negligence of the 2nd respondent in driving the KSRTC bus. The 1st respondent is liable for the act of the 2nd respondent. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate the applicant for the loss sustained by her due to the accident".

By separate written statements filed by respondents 1 and 2, they denied the allegation that the driver of the respondent's bus was negligent. It was contended that the driver of the petitioner's bus drove the vehicle without reducing its speed, although the width of the road at the site of the accident was not sufficient. for two buses to pass. It was contended that the 2nd respondent driver of the corporation bus slowed down and applied the brake so as to facilitate the private bus to pass on without touching the KSRTC bus. Due to the negligence of the driver of the private bus the accident occurred for which he is fully responsible. They also contended that they cannot admit the claim on account of loss of earning or for repair charges.

2. The Tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to get an additional amount of Rs.6,600/- towards cost of materials and repair charges. The Tribunal also found that the daily profit of the bus was Rs.400/- and on that basis awarded Rs.18,400/- as the loss of profit for 46 days. In this appeal the 1st respondent corporation is challenging this award. They have raised an additional ground in the memorandum of appeal raising the contention that under S.110 of the Motor Vehicles Act compensation can be awarded only for death or bodily injury to any person arising out of the use of the motor vehicle or damages to any property of the third party so arising or both and so the award of compensation under the head of loss of collection is without jurisdiction and illegal.

3. The driver of the respondent's bus was examined as PW. land the conductor was examined as PW. 4. They have stated that PW.1 had just started the bus after alighting passengers and it was at that time the KSRTC bus came at a high speed and hit their bus on the right side in front. This version is fully supported by the independent evidence of PW.2, who was a passenger in the private bus. It has also come out in evidence that the road is straight and wide and two buses can conveniently pass side by side, at the place of accident. However, the version of the 2nd respondent, who was examined as RW.1 was that the road at the place of accident is narrow and he had applied brakes and tried to stop the bus and it was at that time that the private bus dashed against the KSRTC bus. After examining the evidence and circumstances, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligent and rash driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus. The evidence