Judgment :- (Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and award dated 14.10.1998 made in M.C.O.P.No.695 of 1997 on the file of the Third Additional Subordinate Judge of Trichy (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Trichy.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against Judgment and award dated 14.10.1998 made in M.C.O.P.No.695 of 1997 on the file of the Third Additional Subordinate Judge of Trichy (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Trichy in and by which the learned Subordinate Judge, awarded compensation of Rs.90,000/- against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/-. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as arrayed in the sit. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 3. On 12.4.1996 at about 00.30 hours, the petitioner was a passenger of the bus bearing Regn.No.TN 33 No.0515 belonging to the first respondent when the bus was going towards the West at Trichy – Coimbatore main road, the driver of the bus, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the stationary lorry Regn.No.TN37-4230 belonging to the second respondent and in consequent to that the petitioner sustained injuries. The petitioner sustained fracture on the left leg. A case against the driver of the first respondent was registered in Crime No.113/96. 4. The petitioner aged about 22 years was working as the Temple Archaka earning Rs.1,600/- per month. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation to an extent of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident. 5. The first respondent objected to the petition and prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition. 6. The petitioner was examined as PW.1, and Dr. Thiru Ilangovan was examined as PW.2. Exs.P1 to P4 were marked on the side of the petitioner. One Mr. Abdul Kadar was examined as RW.1. No document was marked on the side of the respondent. 7. The lower Court after analysing the evidence in depth found that the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.90,000/- against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- against the first respondent only and awarded accordingly while dismissing the claim against the second and third respondents. 8. Heard Mr. D.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.A. Saravanan and Mr. G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 3 respectively. 9. 8. Heard Mr. D.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.A. Saravanan and Mr. G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 3 respectively. 9. Upon hearing the rival claims, the only point that arise for consideration is whether the award passed by the Tribunal is on the higher side? 10. The fact that the accident took place on 12.4.1996 at 00.30 hours on the Trichy – Coimbatore main road while the driver of the first respondent drove the bus bearing Regn.No.TN 33 No.0515 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the stationary lorry and in consequent to that, the petitioner being the passenger of the bus sustained injuries, has been admitted. There is no dispute regarding this fact. 11. The lower Court also after analysing the evidence in depth found that the driver of the first respondent was responsible to the accident and consequent to that fixed the liability against the driver of the first respondent. The lower Court awarded the compensation against the first respondent only under the following heads: Disability 43% Rs.70,000/- Medical expenses Rs.15,000/- Nutritious Food Rs. 2,000/- Pains and sufferings Rs.3,000/- --------- Rs.90,000/- ========== 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has not confronted the finding of the lower Court with respect to item No.2, 3 and 4 of the award. The only question raised is with regard to the quantum fixed under the head disability. 13. According to the Doctor, who was examined as PW.2, the petitioner sustained disability upto 43%. On fact, the petitioner has not sustained any fracture on his leg. He sustained only dislocation of bones on the left leg. The evidence of PW.1 regarding this aspect reads as follows: Tamil 14. The evidence of PW.2 only reveals that there was no fracture of the left leg of the petitioner. The petitioner suffered only dislocation of the bones. The petitioner did not undergo any surgery for his ailment. Only on this basis, learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the percentage of disability fixed on the petitioner is on the higher side. 15. Since the petitioner did not suffer any fractures, fixing of permanent disability at 43% is on the higher side. Any how, considering the nature of the injury, age and other factors, I am of the view that fixing the amount of Rs.40,000/- towards permanent disability would meet the ends of justice. 15. Since the petitioner did not suffer any fractures, fixing of permanent disability at 43% is on the higher side. Any how, considering the nature of the injury, age and other factors, I am of the view that fixing the amount of Rs.40,000/- towards permanent disability would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the compensation is fixed as follows: Disability 43% Rs.40,000/- Medical expenses Rs.15,000/- Nutritious Food Rs. 2,000/- Pains and sufferings Rs.3,000/- --------- Rs.60,000/- ========== The lower Court fixed the rate of interest @ 12% p.a. As per the guidelines of the Apex Court, the rate of interest shall not exceed to 9%. So, I am inclined to fix the rate of interest at 9% per annum instead of 12% as fixed by the lower Court. 16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The compensation amount is fixed as Rs.60,000/- instead of Rs.90,000/- and it carries 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation. With regard to other aspects, the finding of the lower Court is confirmed. Parties have to bear their respective costs.