JUDGMENT : Chitra Venkataraman, J.—Transport Corporation is in appeal against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai made in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 1243 of 2003 questioning the award both on the aspect of negligence and quantum arrived at by the Tribunal for the amputation of right hand of the claimant. 2. The claimant-injured, aged 35 years, has been assisting her husband in his grocery shop. It is seen from the order of the Tribunal that the accident had occurred on 1.2.2003 resulting in grievous injury to the appellant. A petition was made to Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, claiming compensation to the extent of Rs. 23,00,000. 3. By an order dated 5.4.2005 in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 1243 of 2003, the Tribunal passed an order fixing the compensation at Rs. 13,62,500 with interest at 9 per cent from the date of the petition. A perusal of the order would show that based on the evidence adduced by PW 1 and after analysing the evidence of the driver as RW 1, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 13,62,500 as compensation with interest at 9 per cent per annum, keeping the loss of future income at Rs. 10,08,000, for pain and suffering at Rs. 1,25,000, for permanent disability at Rs. 1,50,000, for loss of income during the period of five months at Rs. 37,500 (Rs. 7,500 x 5), for transportation at Rs. 10,000, for extra nourishment at Rs. 20,000, towards damage to clothes at Rs. 10,000 and for medical expenses at Rs. 2,000. The transport Corporation is in appeal before us challenging the award stating that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the driver of the lorry which came from the opposite direction was responsible for the accident. 4. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that the claimant, PW 1, deposed that the driver of the bus turned the bus in a heavy speed, in that process, lost control and got capsized in a pit on the western side of the national highway. The Tribunal also pointed out that there was no evidence to show that any lorry was proceeding from the opposite direction, that too, to avoid collusion, the driver of the bus moved the bus to safety spot. The Tribunal further noted that the conductor of the bus, who lodged the F.I.R. was not examined. The Tribunal also pointed out that there was no evidence to show that any lorry was proceeding from the opposite direction, that too, to avoid collusion, the driver of the bus moved the bus to safety spot. The Tribunal further noted that the conductor of the bus, who lodged the F.I.R. was not examined. It is relevant to note that the F.I.R. made no reference to a lorry proceeding from the opposite side. On the contrary, the F.I.R. merely mentioned that there was a huge sound in the bus and suddenly the bus got capsized in a pit. Going by the above discussions and considering the evidence let in, we do not find any merit in the appeal on the question of negligence. 5. On the question of compensation, it is stated that the claimant sustained injuries in right hand which was amputated above right elbow. Apart from that, she sustained injuries in right eye and all over the body. She was in the Government Medical College & Hospital, Chengalpattu and was subsequently admitted in Stanley Hospital, Chennai. Accident occurred on 1.2.2003. She was inpatient till 24.2.2003. She had a steel plate fixed in the right hand and subsequently, her right hand was amputated above the right elbow. The medical practitioner, who examined as PW 2, deposed that the claimant had suffered 70 per cent permanent disability. The certificate is marked as Exh. P9. The disability certificate given by the Institute for Research & Rehabilitation of Hand and Department of Plastic Surgery is marked as Exh. P10, which also spoke that due to the accident, the appellant suffered permanent disability at 70 per cent. It is further stated that at the time of the accident, the petitioner was 35 years old and she was assisting her husband in the grocery shop and earning a sum of Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 6,000 per month. The Tribunal took the view that the income from the grocery shop as an assistant can be estimated at Rs. 4,500 per month. By referring to Exh. P8 series, which are receipts for payment of the licence fee and estimating the business turnover, the said amount was arrived at by the Tribunal. Apart from this, applying the decision of the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, , the Tribunal fixed the earnings at Rs. 3,000 per month. P8 series, which are receipts for payment of the licence fee and estimating the business turnover, the said amount was arrived at by the Tribunal. Apart from this, applying the decision of the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, , the Tribunal fixed the earnings at Rs. 3,000 per month. Thus loss of earning capacity was fixed at Rs. 7,500. After fixing the loss of income at Rs. 7,500 and permanent disability at 70 per cent, the Tribunal arrived the loss of earning capacity at Rs. 10,08,000. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the transport Corporation questioned the determination of loss of earning capacity as totally without any evidence, apart from granting compensation under other conventional heads. He submitted that there is absolutely no evidence as regards the damage to clothing and articles. Apart from granting compensation under the head of extra nourishment, the Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 towards permanent disability. In short, the appellant questioned the compensation under every head. 7. The learned Counsel for the respondent however supported the claim on the ground that the claimant was assisting her husband. Consequently, the Tribunal noted the loss of income, both from the grocery shop as well as on her family contribution and rightly arrived at the compensation. However, we do not agree with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respondent. As far as the loss of earnings fixed by the Tribunal is concerned, the mere assistance by the wife per se does not lead to loss of income as one gainfully employed. The Tribunal had not adverted to the nature of the services or salary paid to one who served as assistant. It is an admitted case that the claimant assisted her husband in his business in running a grocery shop. In these circumstances, we fail to appreciate the fixation of compensation at Rs. 4,500. The Tribunal also fixed a sum of Rs. 3,000 towards the loss of service as a housewife and applying the decision of the Supreme Court, calculated the same at 70 per cent. It is an admitted fact that there is no contra evidence as regards 70 per cent disability as certified by the doctor. 4,500. The Tribunal also fixed a sum of Rs. 3,000 towards the loss of service as a housewife and applying the decision of the Supreme Court, calculated the same at 70 per cent. It is an admitted fact that there is no contra evidence as regards 70 per cent disability as certified by the doctor. The compensation that has to be awarded in a case like this needs to be measured with reference to the personal injury that a claimant had suffered. Hence, taking note of the nature of injury and the possibility of future discomfort that the claimant has to suffer, the compensation, taking 70 per cent disability, could be awarded fairly at Rs. 1,40,000. This would include the disability as well as compensation on account of loss of facility in life. Apart from this, for pain and suffering, a sum of Rs. 50,000, for transportation a sum of Rs. 2,500, for assistance a sum of Rs. 2,500, for medical expenses a sum of Rs. 2,000, for extra nourishment a sum of Rs. 2,000 and for damage to clothes a sum of Rs. 500 would meet the ends of justice. Thus totalling in all, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,99,500, rounded off to Rs. 2,00,000 with 9 per cent interest per annum. In view of the above, the C.M.A. is partly allowed to the extent as mentioned above. No costs.