Judgment :- This appeal is by the appellant Transport Corporation challenging the judgment dated 30.4.1998 made in M.C.O.P.No.999 of 1991, whereby the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge), Krishnagiri, has allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs.31,200/-(Rupees Thirty one thousand two hundred only) with interest at 12% p.a. for the injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant, in a motor accident said to have taken place on 7. 1991 near Krishnagiri and Hosur National Highways. 2. 1. The brief facts are: On 7. 91 at about 10.00 p.m., the first respondent/claimant boarded a bus belonging to the appellant/transport corporation at the Trichy bus stop to go to Bangalore to visit her grand daughter. At about 4.30 a.m. on the next day, the driver of the bus drove it in a very high speed and in a rash manner and dashed it against the lorry coming in the opposite side, as a result of which, the first respondent/claimant sustained fracture on the lower jaw and at the bottom of her right leg. 2. 2. In the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.999 of 1991, the first respondent/claimant, claimed compensation of Rs.40,000/-towards permanent disability and loss of income, which was resisted by the appellant/transport corporation on the ground that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry belonging to the second respondent. The injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant as well as her monthly income were also disputed. The second respondent, who is the owner of the lorry and third respondent, the insurance company, contended before the Court below that the negligent is purely on the part of the driver of the bus and hence, they need not pay any compensation to the claimant. 3. The Tribunal, after framing the issues and after taking into consideration the evidence, both oral and documentary, by its impugned judgment, held that only due to the negligent and speedy driving of the driver of the bus, the accident had occurred and hence, the appellant/transport corporation is wholly responsible to pay compensation to the claimant and not the second or third respondents. The Tribunal also held that the first respondent/claimant is entitled to the compensation for the injuries sustained by her and determined a sum of Rs.31,200/-as compensation to the first respondent/claimant under the following heads: Permanent disability and loss of income:: Rs.20,000/- Medical expenses:: Rs. 6,000/-Nutritious food:: Rs. The Tribunal also held that the first respondent/claimant is entitled to the compensation for the injuries sustained by her and determined a sum of Rs.31,200/-as compensation to the first respondent/claimant under the following heads: Permanent disability and loss of income:: Rs.20,000/- Medical expenses:: Rs. 6,000/-Nutritious food:: Rs. 1,000/- Damages to clothes:: Rs. 500/- Transport expenses:: Rs. 1,000/- Loss of income during the period under treatment:: Rs. 2,700/- Rs.31,200/- 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/transport corporation submits that the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellant bus is solely responsible for the accident merely relying on the evidence of the first respondent/claimant as P.W.1. He submits that as per the evidence of R.W.1, the driver of the bus, the bus was proceeding on the left side of the road and it was the lorry, which came in a high speed, dashed against the bus, as a result, the accident occurred, which evidence was not taken into consideration in a proper and perspective manner by the Court below. He also submits that the amount awarded as compensation is also without any basis and material evidence on record and the same is excessive. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant submits that the award of the Court below is purely based on the evidence and does not require interference of this Court. He submits that the award amount is not at all on the higher side and the Tribunal considered the evidence in a proper and perspective manner while awarding the said compensation amount. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent/insurance company also submits that the Tribunal was perfectly right in arriving at the conclusion with respect to the negligence part as well as with respect to the compensation amount to be awarded to the claimant. 6. Heard and considered the rival submissions and also perused the order of the Tribunal. 7. As seen from the order of the Tribunal, the first respondent/claimant, who was examined as P.W.1, stated in her evidence that it was the driver of the bus, who drove the bus in a high speed, as a result of which, it dashed against the lorry coming in the opposite direction. 7. As seen from the order of the Tribunal, the first respondent/claimant, who was examined as P.W.1, stated in her evidence that it was the driver of the bus, who drove the bus in a high speed, as a result of which, it dashed against the lorry coming in the opposite direction. The driver of the bus of the appellant/transport corporation was examined as R.W.1, who, in his evidence, stated that when he drove the bus towards western side, the lorry, which came in a high speed in the opposite direction, dashed on the right side of the bus and at that time, the bus was proceeding only on the left side of the road. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of both P.W.1 and R.W.1, found that the evidence of P.W.1 was found to be natural and there was no reason for P.W.1 to give false evidence either against the driver of the bus or in favour of the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal also considered the contention of the appellant/transport Corporation that the issue should be decided based on the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate that the driver of the lorry was responsible for the accident. The Tribunal ultimately, on the basis of the clear evidence of P.W.1, the first respondent/claimant, held that it was the driver of the bus who drove the bus in a high speed and only because of his negligent driving, the accident had occurred. On going through the order of the Tribunal, I do not find any error or infirmity in the same with regard to the conclusion arrived at on the point of negligence and responsibility. 8. With regard to the compensation awarded, the Tribunal took into consideration Ex.P.1 - the wound certificate, the evidence of the doctor, P.W.2, Ex.P.3 series -the medical bills, Ex.P.4 - the permanent disability certificate issued by the doctor certifying that the claimant had suffered 35% of disability, as well as the evidence of P.W.1 that she was earning Rs.1,000/- per month at the time of accident by selling vegetables in the morning and by doing coolie work for the rest of the day and fixed the compensation towards permanent disability and loss of income as Rs.20,000/-, which, in my considered opinion, is not at all on the higher side. Hence, the same stands confirmed. Hence, the same stands confirmed. With regard to the compensation arrived at under other heads, as referred to earlier, I do not see any reason to interfere with the same. Hence, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal also stands confirmed. 9. As regards the interest granted at 12%, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kaushnuma Begum Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [ 2001 (1) SUPREME 5 ), the first respondent/claimant is entitled to an interest at 9% p.a. on the award amount that had already been granted by the Tribunal. In view of the above, finding no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal, the same requires no interference and hence, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.