Judgment :- 1. Since the other side took notice, the main appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. Dheeran Chinnamalai Transport Corporation, Trichy has filed the appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trichy dated 15.11.96 in M.C.O.P. No. 29/1994. The respondent herein filed the said claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 75,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an accident. His case is that on 3.1.93 at about 1.00 p.m. he was travelling as a passenger in the bus belonging to the appellant herein. When the bus was crossing the over bridge near Trichy Junction Railway Station, the bus dashed against another vehicle due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. In the impact the respondent sustained fracture. Hence the claim has been filed. The appellant disputed the claim of the respondent contending that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the respondent herein as he had extended his hand outside the bus and the bus which came in the opposite direction hit against the hand of the respondent and caused fracture. The tribunal after considering the evidence available on record found that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver of the appellant Corporation and awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000/- by way of compensation. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal has been filed. 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector clearly shows that there is no damage to the body of the bus and if it is so, naturally the respondent had extended his hand outside the bus and got himself injured. Hence the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the respondent and not otherwise. 3. On the contrary, the counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent never extended his hand outside the bus but he was having the hand inside the bus. The bus which came in the opposite direction, hit the Corporation bus on the rear end and the respondent being seated in the last row, he got fractured. Even assuming that the respondent had extended his hand outside the bus, it is the duty of the driver of the bus to give sufficient space from the other vehicle considering the safety of the passengers. Even assuming that the respondent had extended his hand outside the bus, it is the duty of the driver of the bus to give sufficient space from the other vehicle considering the safety of the passengers. The driver of the bus had gone so close to the bus which came in the opposite direction whereby the respondent got injured and the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus. Hence the award of the compensation is to be confirmed. 4. I carefully considered the contention of the learned counsel for both the sides. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector did not reveal any damage to the appellant Corporation bus. When there is no damage to the appellant Corporation bus, then it can be presumed that the impact due to the accident is not much. When the impact is not to the extent of damaging the body of the bus, then naturally there is no possibility of that impact causing injury on the hand of the respondent. The Tribunal has also rightly found that the theory put forth by the respondent, that he was having his hand only inside the bus cannot be accepted. So the other alternative is the respondent got injured because of extending his hand outside the bus. 5. It is true that the driver of the bus has to keep sufficient space for the safety of the passengers. In the normal course the passengers are not expected to extend their hands outside the bus. Keeping in mind the heavy traffic and the speed with which the vehicles are moving in the main roads, a slight dot would cause the accident and many time the slight dot is only due to the hurry with which the drivers of the buses are plying the bus or sometimes due to some others like two wheelers or autorickshaws who crept in between suddenly. Under such circumstance, it has to be considered as to whether there is absolute rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus or it is otherwise. Even assuming that the driver of the bus has to keep sufficient space for the safety of the passenger, the sufficient space cannot be defined by measuring of yard slick. There are different circumstances wherein the sufficient space may differ. Even assuming that the driver of the bus has to keep sufficient space for the safety of the passenger, the sufficient space cannot be defined by measuring of yard slick. There are different circumstances wherein the sufficient space may differ. But in the normal course, the passengers are not expected to extend their hands outside the bus and in fact there are warnings in the Corporation and private buses that the passengers are requested not to extend their hands outside the bus. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the accident had caused only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver. There is a certain amount of negligence on the part of the respondent also. 6. On this basis whether the compensation can be reduced is to be considered. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000/- finding that the respondent has suffered 20% of permanent disability. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount for the medical expenses and on other heads like nutritious food, loss of earning capacity, loss of earnings, etc. Admittedly, the respondent has suffered fracture on the right shoulder and right forehand. He was admitted in the General Hospital as an inpatient from 3.1.93 to 11.1.95 and subsequently in a private nursing home from 11.1.93 to 19.1.93. A plate has been fixed in his hand. Considering the nature of the treatment, naturally the respondent may be entitled for a considerable amount towards medical expenses and pain and suffering. The medical evidence further reveals that the respondent is not in a position to attend to his normal work as before and as such he will also be entitled for the loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal has not considered these heads independently and awarded a consolidated amount of Rs. 35,000/-. While considering the permanent disability of 20%, the claimant will be entitled for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- by way of compensation under this head. The balance of Rs. 15,000/- which has been awarded under the other heads, is quite reasonable. When the petitioner is entitled for medical expenses, transport expenses, nutritious food, pain and suffering, the amount awarded by the Tribunal may be taken for these heads. Apart from this, the petitioner may also be entitled for the loss of earning as well as loss of earning capacity. 15,000/- which has been awarded under the other heads, is quite reasonable. When the petitioner is entitled for medical expenses, transport expenses, nutritious food, pain and suffering, the amount awarded by the Tribunal may be taken for these heads. Apart from this, the petitioner may also be entitled for the loss of earning as well as loss of earning capacity. Since the Tribunal did not award any amount under these heads, I am of the view that those amounts can be given credit towards the contributory negligence and the quantum awarded by the Tribunal can be confirmed. Accordingly, I think there is no need to reduce the compensation, and the award amount is confirmed. The appellant is granted four weeks time to deposit the amount. The appeal is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 8804/97 is also dismissed.