Judgment :- VENKATASWAMI, J. These two appeals arise out a common order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, in O.P. Nos. 810 and 813 of 1982, dated 25.10.1983. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of these two appeals may now be noted. The appellant in both the appeals is the Pallavan Transport Corporation. The respondents in C.MA. No. 736 of 1984 are the legal representatives of the deceased by name Narasimnamoorthi. The respondent in C.M.A. No. 737 of 1984 is the injured in the accident that had happened on 19.9.1981 at 9.30 p.m. opposite to Central Jail, Madras. 3. The respondent in CM A. No. 737 of 1984 was riding a motorcycle with deceased Narasimhamoorthi as pillion rider on 19.9.1981. When the motorcycle was proceeding from Mount Road to Central Station, the bus belonging to the appellant was coming from the opposite direction i.e., from Parrys Corner to Saidapet after crossing the yellow fines at the point opposite to Central Jail, hit against the motorcycle at 9.30 p.m. on 19.9.1981 as a result of which, the rider of the motorcycle got severe multiple injuries and the pillion rider died. On the basis of the death and mjuries, the legal representatives of the deceased pillion rider preferred O.P. No. 810 of 1982 claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. 80,000/- while the injured rider of the motorcycle claimed compensation by filing O.P. No. 813 of 1982 claiming a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. 4. Both the claims were opposed by the appellants by contending that the accident took place on account of negligent driving of the motor cycle by the claimed in O.P. No. 813 of 1982 and, therefore, the appellant was not liable for compensation. The appellant also challenged the quantum claiming by the claimants. 5. It is the case of the respondents that as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant, the accident took place on 19.9.1981, and in support of their case, they have examined P.W. 3 (respondent in C.M.A. No. 737 of 1984) as eye witness. The driver of the bus was examined as R.W.I to depose that only as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle, the accident had taken place. On the basis of a sketch filed before the Tribunal, namely, Ex. The driver of the bus was examined as R.W.I to depose that only as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle, the accident had taken place. On the basis of a sketch filed before the Tribunal, namely, Ex. P-7 and on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 3 in preference to the evidence of R.W.I, the Tribunal held that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 62,000/- to the respondents in C.M.A. No. 736 of 1984 and an award of Rs. 16,500/- was given to the respondent in C.M.A. No. 737 of 1984. Aggrieved by the awards as stated above, these appeals are tiled by the appellant. 6. It is not in dispute that the bus was found to have crossed the yellow line while hitting the motor cycle. This has been taken due note of by the Tribunal in addition to the evidence of P.W. 3 and Ex. P7. In the light of the evidence, we do not think there is any case for interference so far as the negligence part of the case is concerned. 7. Now, the other question for consideration is, whether the compensation awarded in both the cases are just and reasonable or they are excessive as contended by the appellant or inadequate as contended by the respondent in C.M.A. No. 737 of 1984 by filing cross objections. 8. Mr. A Jinasenan, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the deceased (case relating to C.M.A. No. 736 of 1984) was a plumber by profession, and the award of Rs. 62,000/- to the L.Rs. is excessive and not related to the evidence on record. 9. We find that the deceased was aged about 35 years and his monthly income as a plumber was fixed at Rs. 500/- by the Tribunal. Out of the monthly income, the Tribunal has taken only Rs. 300/-as contribution to the family and the annual dependency was multiplied by 15 times, having regard to the age of the deceased. On the basis, the Tribunal arrived at a sum of Rs. 54,000/-. In addition to that, the Tribunal granted Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of expectation of life, and Rs. 3000/- towards loss of consortium. In all, the Tribunal gave a sum of Rs. On the basis, the Tribunal arrived at a sum of Rs. 54,000/-. In addition to that, the Tribunal granted Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of expectation of life, and Rs. 3000/- towards loss of consortium. In all, the Tribunal gave a sum of Rs. 62000/- as against the claim of the respondents in C.M.A. No. 736 of 1984 in a sum of Rs. 80,000/-. Having regard to the evidence given by the 1st respondent in C.M.A. No. 736 of 1984 which has not been seriously disputed regarding the age and income, and the profession of the deceased, namely, plumber, we do not think that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal can be said to be in any way excessive. We, therefore, confirm the award of the Tribunal giving a compensation of Rs. 62,000/- to the respondents in C.M.A. No. 736 of 1984. 10. Now, coming to the compensation awarded to the injured, namely, the respondent in C.M.A. No. 737 of 1984, it is seen that he had sustained injuries on his right leg. It is also claimed by the injured that he has sustained injury on the right thigh as well as in the right eye. In support of the injuries sustained, by him, he has examined P.W.I, an orthopaedic surgeon, a private practitioner and P.W. 7, an Assistant Surgeon in the Government General Hospital. It is true that P.W. 7 has deposed in his evidence that he (the injured) has lost the vision in this right eye. However, that was not accepted by the Tribunal in the light of th other evidence available before it. So far as the permanent disability is concerned, P.W.I has given a certificate that the disability is 5% partial and permanent. It is not in dispute that the injured was in the hospital from 19.9.1981 to 9.11.1981, in all, for 50 days out of which he was in an unconscious state for about 20 days. By profession, the injured was a guitarist. According to the respondent in C.M.A. No. 737 of 1984, ne was earning a sum of Rs. 800/- per month. But the Tribunal fixed his earnings at Rs. 500/- per month having regard to the evidence let in before it. Taking note of the injuries sustained by him and the certificate issued by P.W.I, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards the loss of earning, Rs. 800/- per month. But the Tribunal fixed his earnings at Rs. 500/- per month having regard to the evidence let in before it. Taking note of the injuries sustained by him and the certificate issued by P.W.I, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards the loss of earning, Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 1,000/- towards the loss of income for two months, while he was in the hospital, a sum of Rs. 200/- for transport and a sum of Rs. 300/-towards extra nourishment. In all, the Tribunal has given Rs. 16,500/- as compensation for the injured. Hereagain, having regard to the evidence let in by the doctors and the injured himself as P.W. 3 we do not think that the compensation given by the Tribunal is in any way excessive. 11. However, Mr. Sadasivam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in C.M.A. No. 737 of 1984 (cross-objector) vehemently contended that there is no justification for the Tribunal to fix the loss of earnings on account of continuing permanent disability at Rs. 10,000/- as against the claim of Rs. 35,000/-. According to the learned counsel, the injury sustained by mm is such that it is a permanent one and certainly that will stand in the way of the injured from earning throughout his life. But, as found by the Tribunal, the evidence is to the effect that the disability is only 5% permanent as well as partial. Therefore, we do not think that the claim for more than Rs. 10,000/- is in any way justified. 12. Learned counsel strongly contended that though there is the evidence of P.W. 7 to the effect that “Scanner showed right optic nerve contusion and right eye blindness” the Tribunal erred in holding that there was no injury or disability or any such blindness as claimed by the respondent in C.M.A. No. 737 of 1984. No doubt, as pointed out earlier, the learned counsel for the respondent-cross objector, placing heavy reliance on the single sentence in the evidence of P.W. 7, contended that the finding of the Tribunal that there was no injury to the eye, cannot at all be sustained. But there is other evidence which the Tribunal cannot overlook. On a reading of the whole paragraph, we are of the view that the Tribunal has come to a correct conclusion. But there is other evidence which the Tribunal cannot overlook. On a reading of the whole paragraph, we are of the view that the Tribunal has come to a correct conclusion. The said paragraph reads as follows:— “Then in the petition, it is averred as if the petitioner sustained blindness in the right eye because of the injuries sustained in the accident. But there is no acceptable evidence for this. The doctor (P.W. 7) has, no doubt, stated that Scanner showed right optic nerve contusion and right eye blindness. But there is no evidence to show that the blindness happened because of the injuries sustained in the accident. In fact, in Ex. P-6 case-sheet, duty Assistant plastic Surgeon has endorsed that ‘no injury to the eye’. Then the doctor (P.W.I) who was examined by the petitioner for assessing his disability, has not stated anything about any disability caused to the eye. Therefore, there is no proof of disability caused to the eye, such as blindness, due to the injuries sustained in the accident.” Therefore, we are not in a position to accept the case of the learned counsel for the respondent in C.M.A. No. 737 of 1984 that the Tribunal ought to have held that the injured has lost his vision. He also submitted that having regard to the plain and suffering, in particular that the cross-objector was in a state or unconsciousness for a period of 20 days, the compensation awarded in sum of Rs. 5,000/- is too low. We do not think so. On an overall consideration the compensation of Rs. 16,000/-seems to be just and fair. 13. In the result, the appeals as well as the cross-objection are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. 14. The judgment says that the interest at the rate of 12% will be from the date of order. The decrees drafted will show that the interest is from the date of the application. We make it clear that the interest will be at 12% per annum from the date of the petition till date of deposit.