Judgment :- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the award dated 13.02.2001 passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.3794 of 1997 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal viz., V Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 2. The present civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant as against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal viz., V Court of Small Causes, Chennai dated 13.02.2001 in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.3794 of 1997, granting a total compensation of Rs.45,800/-. 3. The appellant/claimant has filed the M.A.C.T.O.P.No.3794 of 1997 on the file of Claims Tribunal viz., V Court of Small Causes, Chennai claiming a total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-, for the serious injuries sustained in the accident. 4. The short facts of the claim are set out in nutshell as below:- On 011. 1997 at about 11.30 hours the claimant was travelling as passenger in the bus TN.23.N.1007, owned by the second respondent, from Poonamalle to Sunguvarchathiram was proceeding along Grand West Trunk Road east to west direction, near Beemanthangal Village, Sriperumpudur Taluk and at that time the bus TN.07.N.9227 came from the opposite direction and both the buses were driven in a rash speed and negligent manner resulting in a head on collusion as a result of which some individuals, including the driver of the second respondent bus died and several others including the claimant sustained serious injuries. The accident has occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of both the buses. Hence, the respondents, as owner of the buses are vicariously and statutorily liable to pay compensation to the claimant with interest and costs. The pleas of the first respondent/Transport Corporation are that on 011. The accident has occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of both the buses. Hence, the respondents, as owner of the buses are vicariously and statutorily liable to pay compensation to the claimant with interest and costs. The pleas of the first respondent/Transport Corporation are that on 011. 1997, their bus TN.07.N.9227 was on its trip from Mysore to Chennai, starting the trip at 21.00 hours and was proceeding towards Chennai, near Beemanthangal Village at 11.30 hours solely and cautiously and at that time the bus belonging to TN Government bus bearing Reg.No.TN.23.N.1007 was coming in an opposite direction by attempting to overtake a car in a rash and negligent manner and on seeing the bus coming in a rash and negligent manner, the driver slow down the bus and stopped it on the left side of the road and that the bus, belonging to the second respondent Corporation was not able to control the speed and dashed against the right side of the bus and therefore, the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the TN Government bus. It is the further contention of the first respondent that the driver of the TN Government bus is equally contributed to the accident and the non joinder of the Tamil Nadu Government bus is fatal to the proceedings. The stand of the second respondent is on 011. It is the further contention of the first respondent that the driver of the TN Government bus is equally contributed to the accident and the non joinder of the Tamil Nadu Government bus is fatal to the proceedings. The stand of the second respondent is on 011. 1997, the second respondent bus bearing Reg.No.TN.23.N.1007 was coming from Chennai to Arani and the bus was driven with moderate speed observing the traffic rules and at about 11.30 hours near Beemanthangal at Perumanthur, the first respondent bus bearing Reg.No.TN.07.N.9227 was coming from Mysore in the opposite direction while overtaking a car proceeded before it came to right side of the road and in its front side dashed against the second respondent bus and the driver of the bus died on the spot and the passengers on the first three rows sustained injuries, since the first respondent bus in fact was pushed inside the second respondent bus and the conductor then went to C1 Police Station at Thiruperumpudur and lodged a complaint and there is no negligence on the part of the second respondent bus and for the fault of first respondent, the second respondent is not liable to pay compensation and that a case has been registered in Cr.No.651/97 against the first respondent bus driver by the Sriperumpudur Police. The Tribunal has examined witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 on the side of the claimant and marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 and on the side of respondents R.W.1-Conductor was examined and no document was marked. After contest, the Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has finally passed an award of Rs.45,800/- as total compensation with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of deposit. The Tribunal has fixed the lawyers fee at Rs.1,500/-. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that both the drivers of the buses are responsible for the accident. 5. The Tribunal has fixed the lawyers fee at Rs.1,500/-. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that both the drivers of the buses are responsible for the accident. 5. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal has awarded a low amount of Rs.7,000/- only as against a claim of Rs.20,000/-for pain and suffering and that for 25% disability, the Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.20,000/- as against a claim of Rs.75,000/- and that the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.9,000/-towards loss of earning, as against a claim of Rs.12,000/-in this regard and that the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.6,000/-towards loss of earning power and this is also an inadequate one and in any event, the award of Rs.45,800/- is not sustainable and that the Tribunal should have awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, as claimed and therefore, prays for allowing the appeal. 6. P.W.1, the claimant in her evidence has deposed that she travelled in the bus TN.23.N.1007 belonging to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Division II) and near Beemanthangal Village, Sriperumpudur, the Tamil Nadu Transport bus which came from opposite direction dashed against the bus in which she was travelling and as a result she sustained injuries on the hip, etc. and she was taken to Anitha Nursing Home at Sunguvarchathiram, wherein she was given the first aid and later she was taken to the Sriperumpudur Government Hospital and was in the bed for two days and thereafter, she got herself admitted into Sri Devi Hospital at Chennai and took a weeks treatment and that her leg, nerves got affected and she has pains on hand and leg. 7. P.W.2-Doctor, who gave Ex.P.9- Disability Certificate, in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered a partial and permanent disability of 25% and that she finds difficulty in domestic volitions and she has difficulty in bending to do work and that he has not treated her. The claimant has difficulty to squat, as opined by P.W.2-doctor, in his Ex.P.9-Disability Certificate dated 20.10.2000. Admittedly, in this case, no copy of the FIR has been marked on the side of claimant. No copy of the charge sheet has been filed before the Tribunal, on the side of appellant/claimant. Therefore, one is left with the evidence of P.W.1, the claimant, P.W.2, the Doctor and the evidence of R.W.1, the conductor. 8. Admittedly, in this case, no copy of the FIR has been marked on the side of claimant. No copy of the charge sheet has been filed before the Tribunal, on the side of appellant/claimant. Therefore, one is left with the evidence of P.W.1, the claimant, P.W.2, the Doctor and the evidence of R.W.1, the conductor. 8. From Ex.P.1-Certificate dated 011. 1997 it is evident that the appellant/claimant has suffered contusion right pubis, following Road Traffic Accident near Sriperumpudur and was given initial treatment and later referred to Government Hospital, Sriperumpudur for investigation and management. Ex.P.2 is the certificate issued by the Sriperumpudur Government Hospital wherein it is mentioned that the claimant was admitted on 011. 1997 and discharged on 011. 1997. From Ex.P.3-wound certificate dated 011. 1997 issued by the Government Hospital, Sriperumpudur, it is evident that the claimant has sustained injuries she was admitted in the female ward. From Ex.P.4-Discharge summary issued by the Sri Devi Hospital, it is clear that the claimant was admitted on 111. 1997 and was discharged on 111. 1997. In Ex.P.4 it is stated that the claimant was admitted with pain over left side of chest and pubis on account of the accident of the bus on 011. 1997 near Sriperumpudur and that she has diffuse swelling left third costal carbilage with tenderness and over the right pubic bone and x-ray showed no fracture and there was contusion in the chest wall left side and resolving heamatoma over right pubic region, CNS, RS, CVS, ABDOMEN – NAD and she was prescribed with some medicines and advice to come for review thereafter. 9. R.W.1-Swaminathan (conductor of the bus) in his evidence has deposed that on 011. 1997, he served as conductor in route No.202 B Service and that the said bus was proceeding from Madras to Arani and near Beemanthangal Sriperumpudur, the accident happened and that the Rajiv Gandhi Bus came in the opposite direction and dashed against their bus and that he sustained injuries and his driver died on the spot and 10 other sustained injuries and that he is not aware of the result of the criminal case. 10. 10. In view of the clear-cut evidence of P.W.1, the claimant that only the bus belonging to the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation dashed against the bus in which she was travelling on the date of accident and inasmuch as R.W.1-the conductor of route No.202 B service proceeding from Madras to Arani, has categorically stated in his evidence that the bus belonging to the Rajiv Gandhi Transport Corporation dashed against his bus, this Court is of the considered view that the accident took place on account of negligent driving of the bus belonging to the Rejiv Gandhi Transport Corporation (first respondent) bearing Reg.No.TN.07.N.9227 and therefore, its driver is consequentially held responsible for causing the accident and the finding is rendered accordingly and therefore, resultantly this Court is not accepting the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of drivers of both the vehicles. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant cited this Court decision in The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Division II), Ltd., Trichy V. S.Kannappan, 2007 (2) TN MAC page 1 at special page 8, wherein it is inter alia observed that "awarding damages at a fixed rate disregarding the age of the claimant, according to the opinion of this Court, will definitely result in injustice, as the same would amount to treating unequals equally. The said rate may range from Rs.1,000/-to Rs.2,000/- per 1% disability depending upon the age of the claimant. Maximum rate shall be applied in case of youngsters and minimum rate shall be applied in case of aged persons. Applying such a test, this Court holds that the maximum rate, viz., Rs.2,000/- per 1% disability in the case of the respondent/claimant in this case shall be absolutely justifiable" and prays for awarding of more compensation than the one awarded by the Tribunal. 12. It is pertinent to point out that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,000/-for pain and suffering and it has awarded a sum of Rs.9,000/-towards loss of earning and it has awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/- for loss of earning power and it has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- only towards disability, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,500/-towards medical expenses, towards damage to clothes it has awarded Rs.300/-, towards nourishment it has awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/-and towards transportation, it has awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/-. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.45,800/-as total compensation to the claimant. 13. At this stage, this Court points out that in the decision the Managing Director, Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation Limited. V. N.Hussain Mohideen, 1993 ACJ at page 1259 for a permanent disability of 20%, a compensation of Rs.20,000/-was assessed and the same awarded by the Tribunal was upheld in appeal by this Court. 14. In the present case on hand, the appellant/claimant has sustained injuries and consequent partial and permanent disability assessed admittedly at 25% by P.W.2-Doctor, who issued Ex.P.9-Disability Certificate. For a partial and permanent disability of 25%, the award of Rs.20,000/- in this regard by the Tribunal is on the lower side, in the considered view of this Court. The age of the claimant is at 35% years as per Ex.P.9-Disability Certificate. 15. It is to be borne in mind that what is the maximum sum per 1% disability is to be awarded to the injured is purely within the discretion and domain of the Claims Tribunal on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule as a straight Jacket cast iron formula can be laid down in this regard, in the considered opinion of this Court. Only rider is that a frugal or meagre compensation per 1% disability shall not be awarded by a Tribunal on any score. 16. Considering the fact that the appellant/claimant has suffered disability of 25%, this Court determines a reasonable rate of Rs.1,400/-per 1% disability to the appellant/claimant and the same accordingly works out to Rs.35,000/- (1,400 x 25) which is fair, just, reasonable and equitable too on the facts and circumstances of the case. In other respects, this Court is not interfering with the various sums awarded under different heads by the Tribunal, since they are found to be fair and proper. The Advocates fee of Rs.1,500/-, determined by the Tribunal is proper and therefore, the same is not tinkered with. 17. Thus, the appellant/claimant is awarded a total compensation of Rs.60,800/-(Rs.45,800/- + Rs.15,000/-). Accordingly, this Court awards a sum of Rs.60,800/-(Rupees sixty thousand and eight hundred only) as compensation for the disability suffered by the appellant and resultantly, this Court concludes that a sum of Rs.45,800/-awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the claimant is inadequate. 18. 17. Thus, the appellant/claimant is awarded a total compensation of Rs.60,800/-(Rs.45,800/- + Rs.15,000/-). Accordingly, this Court awards a sum of Rs.60,800/-(Rupees sixty thousand and eight hundred only) as compensation for the disability suffered by the appellant and resultantly, this Court concludes that a sum of Rs.45,800/-awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the claimant is inadequate. 18. Already, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.45,800/-along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit. If the award amount of Rs.45,800/- along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit has already been deposited by the concerned respondent Transport Corporation, then the difference sum of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) along with interest at 12% per annum (as enhanced compensation) is directed to be paid by the concerned respondent Transport Corporation by means of deposit into the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal viz., V Court of Small Causes, Chennai to the credit of M.A.C.T.O.P.No.3794 of 1997 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. On such deposit, a liberty is given to the appellant/claimant to receive the same by projecting a necessary payment out application in accordance with law. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in above terms. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.