Judgment :- 1. In this appeal, at the instance of Nesamony Transport Corporation, against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Thenkasi, in M.C.O.P. No. 26 of 1989, the two questions, which arise for consideration, are (1) whether the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the bus belonging to the appellant and bearing registration No. TMN 2946 was driven rashly and negligently by its driver on 27.7.1988 and caused the accident to the respondent herein, while he was driving his motor cycle TNI 8412, and (2) whether, in respect of the injuries sustained by the respondent in the accident, the Tribunal was justified in awarding to him compensation in a sum of Rs. 25,000/-together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of payment. 2. There is no dispute now that the respondent was involved in an accident on 27.7.1988, as he was proceeding on his motor cycle TNI 8412 from Kooniyur to Karisalkudi. According to the case of the respondent, while he was proceeding along the left side of the road between Seranmadevi and Nagercoil, at about 7.15 am on 27.7.1988, the bus TMN 2946, belonging to the appellant, came driven rashly and negligently and in violation of the rules of the road and hit against him and the bus did not stop. The further case of the respondent was that after the accident, he became unconscious and one Philips of Nagercoil took him in his car to a private hospital, Indira Clinic, at Seranmadevi and subsequently, the brother of the respondent and another servant came there and admitted the respondent into Sheeba Clinic at Tirunelveli. The respondent also stated that he informed the Doctor, as to how he received injuries in the accident and subsequently, he was admitted into Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital on 2.8.1988, when he gave a complaint to the police on the basis of which, a case was registered against the driver of the bus. Stating that at the time of the accident, he was aged 42 and was earning about Rs. 1500/- every month, the respondent prayed that compensation in a sum of Rs. 1 lakh should be awarded to him. 3. The appellant resisted the claim contending that the bus TMN 2946 was not at all involved in the accident. Stating that at the time of the accident, he was aged 42 and was earning about Rs. 1500/- every month, the respondent prayed that compensation in a sum of Rs. 1 lakh should be awarded to him. 3. The appellant resisted the claim contending that the bus TMN 2946 was not at all involved in the accident. The appellant also put forward the plea that there was no rashness or negligence and that the respondent had come forward with the claim for compensation on fanciful grounds. The compensation claimed was also characterised to be excessive and exorbitant. 4. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that the respondent had established that the rash and negligent driving of the bus TMN 2946 belonging to the appellant by its driver had caused the accident on 27.7.1988, in which the respondent sustained injuries and that in respect of the injuries so sustained, the respondent deserved to be awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- together with interest, as stated earlier. It is the correctness of the award so passed that is questioned in this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant first contended that the involvement of the bus TMN 2946 in the accident that took place on 27.7.1988, has not been made out. According to learned counsel, even as per the case of the respondent, immediately after the accident, he became unconscious and was removed to the hospital by a passer-by and he regained consciousness only on 2.8.1988 and it is difficult to accept that the respondent had been in a position to give either the number of the bus involved in the accident or even the name of the person, who drove the vehicle stated to be involved in the accident. Counsel also submitted that either Philips, the person who removed the respondent to the hospital at Seranmadevi nor even the brother of the respondent who is stated to have admitted the respondent in another nursing home, was examined and this would also show that the involvement of the vehicle TMN 2946 in the accident, was not established. 6. Counsel also submitted that either Philips, the person who removed the respondent to the hospital at Seranmadevi nor even the brother of the respondent who is stated to have admitted the respondent in another nursing home, was examined and this would also show that the involvement of the vehicle TMN 2946 in the accident, was not established. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent had no doubt become unconscious after the accident but that be itself would not have prevented the respondent from either giving the number of the bus involved in the accident or at least the identity of the driver of the bus, as stated by the respondent in the course of his evidence. The non-examination of Philips or the brother of the respondent, touching upon the manner in which the accident had taken place, was stated to be not very material, as they were not present at the time when the accident took place. It was also further submitted that the motor vehicle Inspectors report showed that damage had been sustained by the motor cycle, which was in a good mechanical condition and therefore, the only manner, in when it should have sustained some damage, was as a result of a violent impact with the bus belonging to the appellant. 7. Regarding the manner in which the accident took place, there is the evidence of the respondent herein, examined as P.W. 1 and the driver of the bus, R.W. 1 According to P.W. 1 as he was proceeding on the motor cycle, keeping to the left side of the road, the bus TMN 2946 came driven rashly and negligently from behind and hit the motor cycle throwing him off the motor cycle, as a result of which, he sustained injuries and the bus did not stop and the accident was the outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the bus. P.W. 1 admitted that he became unconscious and that he was removed to a private Nursing Home at Seranmadevi by one Philips. In the course of his cross examination P.W. 1 stated in the Medical College Hospital, he gave the number of the bus as well as the name of the driver of the bus to the Doctor (sic) to enable preparation of the first information report. In the course of his cross examination P.W. 1 stated in the Medical College Hospital, he gave the number of the bus as well as the name of the driver of the bus to the Doctor (sic) to enable preparation of the first information report. P.W. 1 also added that he identified R.W. 1 as the driver of the bus at the bus stand of Seranmadevi. The driver of the bus, examined as R.W. 1 would flatly deny the accident and would state that the bus TMN 2946 driven by him on 27.7.1988 was not at all involved in the accident. It is in the background of this evidence that the probabilities pointing out to the accident having taken place in the manner spoken to by P.W. 1 have to be considered? It is true that after the impact, the respondent became unconscious and was removed to the Nursing Home by a passer-by, from where again, he was. removed to another nursing home and he regained consciousness after a period of five days. Merely from this circumstance it cannot be assumed that the respondent had not noticed the number of the bus either immediately after the impact or some time before he lost his consciousness. It might have been a fleeting glimpse of the number board of the bus and he might have remembered the number when he gave it to the Doctors at the hospital and also to the police while lodging the first information report. The non-examination of the passer-by who took him to the Nursing Home and the brother of the respondent, who had taken him to another Nursing home, may not, in my view, be very material, for, it is not even the case of the respondent that they had witnessed the accident; The evidence of P.W. 1 to the effect that he gave the name of the driver even at the time of lodging the first information report, appears to me to be very difficult to accept, tor, it is not possible to say who was hit by a passing bus and lying on the road side to have known the name of the person, who was driving the bus. Obviously, P.W. 1 had given an exaggerated version, while he mentioned that he gave the name of the driver. Even so, the identification of the driver by the respondent, assumes significance in this case. Obviously, P.W. 1 had given an exaggerated version, while he mentioned that he gave the name of the driver. Even so, the identification of the driver by the respondent, assumes significance in this case. When P.W. 1 had categorically stated that he was able to identify R.W. 1 at the hospital at Seranmadevi that would establish that the respondent had recollected the identity of the person, whom he had earlier seen, driving the bus as the one, who had caused the accident as well and it was only this that enabled P.W. 1 to identify R.W. 1 at the bus stand. This circumstance would be sufficient to connect R.W. 1 as the driver of the bus, which caused the accident and when it is not in dispute, that R.W. 1 on the date of accident, was driving the bus T.M.N. 2946, its involvement in the accident is also established. There is also yet another circumstance, which would strengthen this. The report of the Motor Vehicles Inspectors, marked as A.3 would show that the motor cycle was mechanically in a perfect condition and obviously, therefore, it could not have been involved in the accident owing to any defect in it. In the absence of any other suggestion regarding the manner in which the accident took place, it follows that the motor cycle was hit by the bus driven by R.W. 1 and that was why it had sustained damage. Considering the aforesaid features disclosed by the evidence, the Tribunal cannot be stated to have committed any error in concluding that the bus T.M.N. 2946 belonging to the appellant was driven rashly and negligently by its driver, R.W. 1 and that had caused the accident. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that the amount of compensation awarded was excessive and on the high side. However, it is not possible to accept this. In the accident, the respondent sustained an injury on his fore-head as well as a fracture of the right wrist. Exs. A4 is the wound certificate and this discloses the injuries. Ex. A6 shows that the respondent was an in-patient in the hospital. Ex. A7 shows that the respondent had undergone treatment in a private Nursing Home, The damage sustained by the motor cycle had been repaired and Ex. A9 series (sic) doctor who had examined the respondent, had given a disability certificate, marked as Ex. Ex. A6 shows that the respondent was an in-patient in the hospital. Ex. A7 shows that the respondent had undergone treatment in a private Nursing Home, The damage sustained by the motor cycle had been repaired and Ex. A9 series (sic) doctor who had examined the respondent, had given a disability certificate, marked as Ex. A11 showing that the respondent had sustained 20% partial and permanent disability. He had also spoken to the disability in the course of his evidence as P.W. 2. The tribunal had awarded to the respondent a total compensation of Rs. 25,000/- together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of claim petition. Towards the injuries suffered, pain and suffering disability, loss of earning and loss of earning capacity, the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 20,000/- and on the materials available, it is very fair and reasonable. The sum of Rs. 2500/- awarded towards medical expenses also appears to me to be very fair, just and reasonable. The damage sustained by the motor cycle had been set right by incurring an expenditure, as stated earlier and towards this, the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 1500/-. which also appears to me to be fair and reasonable. In regard to extra nourishment, the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 1,000/- and that also cannot be stated to be high. Indeed, no evidence was placed before court to establish that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was high or otherwise deserves to be reduced. Consequently no case is made out to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. The C.M.A. is dismissed with costs.