Judgment :- (Appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.3234 of 1995, on the file of the II Small Causes Court, Chennai/ Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai, dated 30.07.1999.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the respondent in the M.C.O.P, against the award dated 30.07.1999, made in M.C.O.P.No.3234 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ II Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 2. The brief facts of the case is as follows: On 18.05.1995 at about 11.30 AM, when the respondent/claimant was standing at the Gunny bus stand on G.S.T. Road, the bus bearing Registration No. TN 21 N 007 belongs to the appellant/respondent, was driven from north to south by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and causes the accident. Due to which, the respondent/claimant sustained grievous injuries and fracture, for which she filed the claim petition, seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the appellant/respondent. In support of her contention, the respondent/claimant had examined herself as P.W.1, apart from examining the Doctor, who issued disability certificate as P.W.2. On the side of the respondent/claimant, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 were also marked. The Driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the sides and after hearing the arguments, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, has awarded a total compensation of Rs.65,277/- to be paid by the appellant herein, to the respondent/claimant with interest and costs. Aggrieved by the award, the respondent in the M.C.O.P. has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the motor accident had taken place only due to the negligence of the respondent/claimant and not the driver of the bus belongs to the appellant. The learned counsel further contended that the award of compensation is exorbitant. 4. As per the findings of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the appellant/respondent has admitted that the motor accident had taken place on 18.05.1995 at about 11:30 a.m. on the G.S.T. Road, Guindy. But according to the appellant herein, the respondent/claimant while attempting to get in to the bus, fell down and sustained injuries. The Claimant was examined as P.W.1, who deposed that she had come to the bus stand at Gunny to go to Naggeri, her native place along with her two grand children. But according to the appellant herein, the respondent/claimant while attempting to get in to the bus, fell down and sustained injuries. The Claimant was examined as P.W.1, who deposed that she had come to the bus stand at Gunny to go to Naggeri, her native place along with her two grand children. While, she was standing at the bus stop, the bus belongs to the appellant herein was driven in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. The Driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1, who has admitted that the respondent had been standing with two children at the place, prior to the accident and according to him, she had fallen down, since the other persons standing there pushed her down. The injured claimant was taken to Royapettah Hospital in the same bus after the accident. But, during cross examination, the driver of the bus, R.W.1 has admitted that he contested the case, but the Judicial Magistrate, Saidapet convicted him and accordingly, he paid the fine amount and no appeal was preferred against the judgment rendered by the Judicial Magistrate. 5. As the Driver, R.W.1 has admitted that he was convicted and the fine imposed by the said Judicial Magistrate was also paid by him, hence, he is estopped from saying that there was no negligence on his part and that due to the negligence of the respondent/claimant, the accident had taken place. Further, the copy of the First Information Report, relating to Cr.No.1914 of 1995, registered under Section 337 IPA and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the J-3, Gunny Police Station, on the date of the accident was marked as Ex.P.6 and the certificate copy of the rough sketch prepared by the police in the aforesaid case was marked as Ex.P.7, wherein the place of accident is shown, nearby the bus stop. Therefore, I find no error or illegality in the finding of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal that the accident had taken place, due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belongs to the appellant herein. 6. As per the Ex.P.4, the disability certificate issued by the Doctor, P.W.2, the total disability sustained by the respondent/ claimant was assessed at 50%. 6. As per the Ex.P.4, the disability certificate issued by the Doctor, P.W.2, the total disability sustained by the respondent/ claimant was assessed at 50%. P.W.2, the Government Doctor has deposed that he found a fracture on the right leg of the respondent/claimant and due to mal union of the fractured portion, the movement of her right leg at the knee portion was also reduced to 30 degree. Similarly, the movement of her hip portion was reduced by 15 degree. The X-Ray marked as Ex.P.5, would show the steel plate fixed at the fractured bone of the respondent/claimant. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs.50,000/- for the 50% of the permanent disability sustained by the respondent/claimant. For pain and suffering, the claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- and for loss of income, during the period of treatment Rs.3,000/- and for medical expenses Rs.277/-, for nutritious food Rs.2,000/- were awarded by the claims tribunal on the aforesaid heads. 7.The Full Bench of this Court in Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd., v. Ahmed Thambi, reported in 2006(4) CTC 433 has held that compensation could be awarded separately for permanent disability and for loss of earning power or jointly under a single head, but the compensation so awarded under the heads should be just, adequate and reasonable, so as to achieve the statutory goal. Awarding compensation should be on a larger perspective of justice, equity and good conscience and technical issues should be eschewed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755 has laid down the following principles. "Broadly speaking, while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include – (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life." 8. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, since the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation for 50% permanent disability, based on the certificate issued by P.W.2, a qualified doctor attached to the Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai. I hold that the same is just and reasonable. Considering both the oral and documentary evidence on record, it would clearly show that the award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards 50% permanent disability sustained by the respondent/ claimant is no way exorbitant. The claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs.277/- based on the medical bill, Ex.P.2 produced by the claimant and similarly based on the salary certificate, Ex.P.3, Rs.3,000/- was awarded as compensation by the Tribunal for loss of income during the period of treatment. Therefore, I find no error or illegality in the award passed by the Tribunal, which would warrant this Court to interfere with the same and hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.