Judgment :- The respondent in W.C.No.325 of 1999 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem Region, Salem is the appellant before this Court. 2. The respondent herein has filed the claim application before the said authority stating that he was employed by the appellant as a driver in the bus bearing registration No.TN-33-N-1089. On 24. 1998, when he was driving the vehicle in Coimbatore-Madurai route, the bus met with an accident and he sustained injuries in his right leg and hand and got fracture. He was admitted in the Government Hospital, Dharapuram. He suffered permanent disability and hence, he filed the said claim application claiming a sum of Rs.1 lakh for the injuries sustained by him. The appellant herein being the opposite party in the claim application has filed the counter repudiating the contentions raised in the claim application. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem Region, Salem after considering the entire aspects of the matter came to the conclusion that the driver of the bus has not driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and further held that the respondent herein is entitled to a sum of Rs.75,106/- as compensation. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contended that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the respondent herein. 4. Admittedly, the respondent herein has examined himself as P.W.1 and he deposed that the accident took place not due to his rash and negligent driving of the bus. To disprove the same, the appellant-Transport Corporation has not let in any evidence. Hence, the only evidence that was available before the authority was the evidence of the respondent herein as P.W.1. Thus, the authority rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent has not driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 5. Regarding the compensation that has been awarded by the authority, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that excess amount has been awarded by the authority. Further, the certificate and disability certificate, nothing is on record to grant a sum of Rs.75,106/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by the respondent. I am unable to subscribe my views with regard to the said argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Further, the certificate and disability certificate, nothing is on record to grant a sum of Rs.75,106/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by the respondent. I am unable to subscribe my views with regard to the said argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Admittedly, on the side of the respondent Ex.A-1 F.I.R., Ex.A-2 wound certificate, Ex.A-3 wage slip, Ex.A-4 X-Ray and Ex.A-5 disability certificate have been filed. Furthermore, P.W.2 Dr. S. Natarajan has deposed that the respondent herein has suffered grievous injuries and he has explained in detail the permanent disability suffered by him. Through him Ex.A-5 has been marked to show that the permanent disability is at 40%. The authority below has considered that aspect of the matter and has arrived at a sum of Rs.75,106/- as compensation. The said amount appears to be just and reasonable. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant could not point out that the said amount is excessive. 7. For all the reasons stated above, the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem Region, Salem, made in W.C.No.325 of 1999 dated 5. 2001 is liable to be confirmed and accordingly, the same is confirmed. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.