V. Dutta Gyani, C. J, (Acting)- Both these appeals arose out of the same judgment and award dated 8.10.91 as passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No.73 (K) of 1985 thereby awarding Rs. l,08,000/- only with interest 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment or recovery of the amount of compensation as awarded. 2. Few basic facts may now be noted. On 3.2.85 the claimant Smti Nilima Devi was travelling from Guwahati to Maligaon, a suburb by Bus No. ASX 3177 belonging to the Assam State Transport Corporation sustained injuries as she was alight from the bus at its usual stoppage near Guwahati Nursery and just her one leg touching the ground the bus moved and she fell to the ground sustaining fracture and lacerated injuries. She claimed compensation for injuries, expenses incurred for medical treatment and the amount spent on an attendant, mental and bodily pain that she had to suffer. A total claim of Rs.3,00,000/- was made which was resisted by the State Transport Corporation mainly on the ground that the identity of the offending vehicle was not established in the ejahar lodged by her on 26.2.85. The bus number as given was ASX 3208 which according to the Corporation was not in operation at the relevant time and Bus No. ASX 3177 though belonging to the Corporation was not involved in any accident as alleged by the claimant Smti Nilima Devi. On the basis of the pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues - 1. Whether the claim petition is maintainable in present form? 2. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of ASTC City Bus No. ASX 3177 causing injuries to person of claimant? 3. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation and if so to what extent and from whom recoverable? 4. What relief, if any, are the claimants entitled to? 3. The learned Tribunal having discussed the evidence both oral and documentary, on the basis of statement of PW1 Nilima Devi, PW 2 Manisha and PW 3 Kamala Kanta Sarma came to the conclusion that buses belonging to the Corporation are quite identifiable. Ext A, the report submitted by the Corporation was rejected. This finding arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be assailed on any legitimate ground. Appellant Corporation is a statutory body. Ext A, the report submitted by the Corporation was rejected. This finding arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be assailed on any legitimate ground. Appellant Corporation is a statutory body. Such plea as to the identity of the bus number which at times a passenger falling from the bus and sustaining injuries is likely to miss, should not be allowed to be capitalised. 4. The Tribunal has found the testimony of PW 1 and 2 as unimpeachable. The claimant's age at the time of accident was 47 years. She was graduate and also she prepared for some examination in music. The learned Member while rejecting the claimant appellant's claim on monthly income of Rs. 1,200/- has assessed her monthly income at Rs.500-600/- The average life span of 65 has been taken and considering the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 who had treated her in Eastend Nursing Home, the Tribunal has come to conclusion that the PW 1 has suffered a permanent disablement. 5. As for other expenses, which the claimant had to suffer on account of treatment the Tribunal has observed that treatment in luxurious Nursing Home unless advised is considered not just for the purpose of payment of the award and the expenses part of Rs.5,000/- incurred on account of engaging an attendant has been held to be too high. Finally, the Tribunal taking into consideration all aspects of the matter applying multiplier of 15 and assessing her dependency at Rs.600/-awarded Rs. 1,08,000/-. It is not as if the Tribunal who oblivious on deduction of being made on account of lump sum payment, it did consider a deduction to the extent of 30%, but taking note of the fact that the claim was made in the year 1985 and the award was passed towards the end of 1991, the devaluation of rupee, rather its purchasing power the Tribunal did not think it necessary to make any deduction on that account. 6. We have heard Mr. P. C. Deka, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant Transport Corporation and Mr. B. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the claimant Smti Nilima Devi who has claimed for enhancement of the compensation. 7. So far as the appellant State Transport Corporation is concerned, it enjoys statutory exemption from insurance. It is both the owner as well as the insurer. As insurer the scope of resistance of a claim is statutorily well defined. B. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the claimant Smti Nilima Devi who has claimed for enhancement of the compensation. 7. So far as the appellant State Transport Corporation is concerned, it enjoys statutory exemption from insurance. It is both the owner as well as the insurer. As insurer the scope of resistance of a claim is statutorily well defined. Therefore the grounds as raised by the State Transport Corporation could not have been available to an insurer and the findings recorded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be unreasonable or without any evidentiary support. Even otherwise, the driver of a public conveyance which is about to. stop ought to anticipate that passengers are likely to alighting and should be specially careful to keep a good look out for them. Negligence is writ large in the conduct of the bus driver. The claimant was a graduate. She sustained fracture and the disability is proved to be of permanent nature by a qualified Orthopedic Surgeon. The view taken by the Tribunal that instead of going to a private Nursing Home she should have first be treated at the Govt. hospital on the prevailing circumstance, cannot be subscribed to. Even Govt. servants are availing medical aid in private Nursing Home and one cannot lose the sight of the fact that a person injured, more so, in case of a lady to avoid any limping gait in future, the first anxiety is to get the best available medical treatment. Considering the claim for enhancement and the counter-claim for deduction in the compensation there is some scope for both. If some amount is deducted on account of monthly income as assessed by the Tribunal, there is equally some scope for adding on expenses incurred for medical treatment in the private Nursing Home which has been disallowed by the Tribunal. But this arithmetical exercise, on taking a balanced view of the matter as a whole is not going to be fruitful as awarded by the Tribunal is also on lower side. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, both these appeals fail, they are accordingly dismissed with not order as to cost. 9. But this arithmetical exercise, on taking a balanced view of the matter as a whole is not going to be fruitful as awarded by the Tribunal is also on lower side. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, both these appeals fail, they are accordingly dismissed with not order as to cost. 9. The amount of compensation minus the amount paid or deposited shall be paid by the appellant Assam State Transport Corporation within 3 (three) months from the date of order, failing which the rate of interest chargeable shall be 12% per annum on such amount till it is actually paid or realised.