Judgment :- K. Govindarajan, J. The above first six appeals in C.M.A.Nos.881 to 886 of 1999 filed by the Transport Corporation arise out of a common order passed in O.P.No.436 of 1996 to 441 of 1996. 2. The claimant also filed cross objections No.80/2001 not satisfied with the quantum in O.P.No.436 of 1996. The claimant in O.P.No.437 of 1996 also filed an independent appeal in C.M.A.No.841 of 1999 seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. On 15.4.1993, the deceased in O.P.No.436 of 1999 and 440 of 1996 and the claimants in other O.Ps. travelled in a Maruti Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-M-401. When they were proceeding near Singadivakkam Koot Road, Kancheepuram Taluk, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-23-9491 belongs to the appellant corporation dashed against the Car and thereby caused death to the two persons as stated above. 4. One of the legal representatives of the deceased filed O.P.No.436 of 1996 claiming compensation of Rs.9.00 lakhs and the injured persons filed O.P.No.437, 438, 439 and 441 of 1996 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, 1,00,000/-, 5,25,000/-, and 1,05,000/- respectively. The parents of the child, who died in the accident, filed O.P.No.440 of 1996 claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Tribunal below awarded a sum of Rs.4,75,000/-, 49,000/-, 33,450/-, 42,100/-, 55,000/- and 28,000/- respectively. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the corporation has submitted that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruti Car and not the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant's bus. He has also stated that the driver of the bus gave a criminal complaint which was marked as Ex.P.1, but the Tribunal found that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. 6. The evidence is available to show that the road is 60 feet width and 5 feet mud road on both sides. Though R.W.1 has deposed to the effect that he saw the Maruthi Car on the opposite side overtaking a lorry and dashed against the bus. Even though in the cross examination, it is stated that such plea has been raised in the counter, no such plea was made in the counter affidavit. He has also stated in the cross examination that on seeing the car at the distance of 10 feet he stopped the bus on the left side and inspite of that the car dashed against the bus. He has also stated in the cross examination that on seeing the car at the distance of 10 feet he stopped the bus on the left side and inspite of that the car dashed against the bus. But the conductor, who was examined as R.W.2, in his cross examination stated that though the driver turned the bus on the left side the bus went into the mud road towards the tamarind tree. 7. The said discrepancy, in both the evidence regarding the driving of the bus, was taken note of by the Tribunal. The evidence of the driver R.W.1 that he stopped the bus was not rightly accepted by the Tribunal, in view of the evidence of R.W.2. All these aspects have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal and found that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Since the Tribunal has elaborately dealt with the evidence to arrive at such a conclusion, we are not inclined to interfere with such a finding of the Tribunal. 8. With respect to the quantum, in C.M.A.No.881 of 1996 the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that inspite of the fact that there is no evidence with respect to the earning capacity of the deceased Govardhan, the Tribunal is not correct in fixing a sum of Rs.4500/- as monthly income. The claimant has filed Exs.P.32 to 34,namely, lease agreement deed, lease renewal, and rental receipts, to show that the deceased was running the business in the name and style of "Lakshdan Florits." He took a building for rent at the rate of Rs.400 per month. He was also having a car for his personal use. The above said fact clearly establishes the status of the deceased and even if no specific evidence is available, on the basis of the above said facts, the income of the deceased can be easily assessed as it has been done by the Tribunal. So taking into consideration of the above said facts, the Tribunal is correct in fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4500/- and after deducting one third, the Tribunal has fixed Rs.3000/- towards contribution to his family. So taking into consideration of the above said facts, the Tribunal is correct in fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4500/- and after deducting one third, the Tribunal has fixed Rs.3000/- towards contribution to his family. On the basis of Ex.P.27, School certificate, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at the time of accident as 48 and applying multiplier 13, it determined the total loss of income at Rs.4,68,000/-. The Tribunal added another sum of Rs.7000/- towards conventional damages, for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. In toto, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,75,000/- as compensation. 9. The claimants have filed a cross objection seeking enhancement of the compensation. Though the Tribunal rightly awarded the compensation towards loss of income, the compensation awarded for the conventional damages, namely, Rs.7000/-, in our opinion, is very meagre. The claimant is the wife, aged about 44 years, of the deceased and the third respondent is the daughter, Anupama. 10. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the claimants each entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. So the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.4,75,000 to 4,88,000/-. The claimants are entitled to 9% interest for the enhancement of compensation. To that extent cross objection is allowed and the C.M.A.No.881 of 1999 is dismissed. 11. In So far as the appeal No.882 of 1999 the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.49,900/-, the claimant is a salesman in a furniture shop. She sustained injuries on her left hand and leg. She filed Ex.P.27 to show that she was admitted into the Government Hospital, Kancheepuram and lastly she was admitted in the St. Johns Medical College and Hospital, Bangalore. The certificate issued by the hospital has been marked as Ex.P.10. In the said certificate the nature of the injury and disability is described as follows: "There was shortening of Lt. Lower limb by 2.5". Wasting of Lt.thigh by 1" and Lt. Calf by Ñ". Lt.hip movements ¹ NIL (c). Lt. Knee flexion limited by 10. Xray ¹ Lt. Hip shows fracture united. % of disability ¹ Shortening 20% Limitation of lowerlimb 5% ----- 25% of the Lt. Lower limb Due to present injury (ankylosis Lt.Leg 50% due to early fracture).÷ 12. The claimant also filed Ex.P.40, disability certificate. Calf by Ñ". Lt.hip movements ¹ NIL (c). Lt. Knee flexion limited by 10. Xray ¹ Lt. Hip shows fracture united. % of disability ¹ Shortening 20% Limitation of lowerlimb 5% ----- 25% of the Lt. Lower limb Due to present injury (ankylosis Lt.Leg 50% due to early fracture).÷ 12. The claimant also filed Ex.P.40, disability certificate. From the said certificate it is clear that the permanent disability has been assessed as 60%. Though the injured suffered 60% permanent disability, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.35,000/- towards permanent disability. The Tribunal should have awarded Rs.60,000/- towards permanent disability. Therefore, the compensation for permanent disability is increased from Rs.35,000 to Rs.60,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. Taking into consideration of the nature of the injuries and mental and physical agony, we are inclined to increase the said amount to Rs.20,000/- from Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.1000/- towards transport charges and Rs.3855/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, in toto, the claimant is entitled to Rs.84,855/- and the same is rounded to Rs.85,000/-, instead of Rs.49,900/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant is entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% on the enhancement of compensation. Hence, the appeal filed by the corporation in C.M.A.No.882 of 1999 is dismissed and C.M.A.No.841 of 1999 is allowed in part to the above said extent. 13. In C.M.A.No.883 of 1999, arises out of O.P.No.438 of 1996, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.33,450/- to the claimant for the injuries sustained. She has numbness in her right hand even after the treatment and she is not able to lift the materials due to the accident. The document has been filed to show that she sustained 20% disability in the right forearm. So the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards permanent disability. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1940/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.1500/- towards transport charges. In toto, the Tribunal awarded Rs.33,450/-. Taking into consideration of the nature of the injury and the treatment taken by the injured, we are of the opinion that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. So we are not inclined to interfere with the award and hence the appeal is dismissed. 14. In so far as the appeal in C.M.A.No.884 of 1999 the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.42,100/-. So we are not inclined to interfere with the award and hence the appeal is dismissed. 14. In so far as the appeal in C.M.A.No.884 of 1999 the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.42,100/-. Though the claimant has filed Ex.P.12, discharge summary of Anupama, to prove that there were few bruises on dorsal aspect of foot and lacerations over lateral aspect of thigh and tenderness present over posterior aspect of the knee joint. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony. She took treatment only in the Government Hospital. No document was filed to show that she sustained permanent disability. Inspite of that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony. We feel that the said amount is on the higher side. So we are inclined to reduce the said amount to Rs.10,000/- from Rs.25,000/-. The Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.1060.85/- towards medical expenses, Rs.6000/- towards transport charges, Rs.5000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.5000/- towards pain and suffering. In toto, the claimant is entitled to Rs.27,100/- and not Rs.42,100/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the C.M.A.No.884 of 1999 is allowed in part as indicated above. 15. With respect to the appeals in C.M.A.Nos.885 and 886 of 1999, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not seriously argued on the quantum. Hence, we are inclined to confirm the said amount awarded as Rs.55,000/- in O.P.No.440 of 1996 and Rs.28,000/- in O.P.No.441 of 1996. Hence, the above appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.Ps. are also dismissed.