Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the Transport Corporation-appellant against award dated 27.04.2004 made in MCOP No.376 of 2003 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional Sub Judge) Erode. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 012. 2000 at about 1.55 p.m., the first respondent/claimant along with his relative proceeding from Salem to Vellore in a bus bearing registration No.TN-23-N-1127 belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation. When the bus nearing Sukkampatty, Salem District, the driver of the bus driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the tamarind tree, due to which, the claimant had sustained grievous injuries all over the body. The claimant was immediately admitted in Government Hospital, Salem. After getting first aid, he was admitted in Lotus Appallo Hospital, Erode. He claimed a sum of Rs.6,38,000/- as compensation. The appellant-Transport Corporation resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1.Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver or not? 2. What is the compensation the claimant is entitled to? If so, what is the amount and from whom?" After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of income due to disability Rs. 75,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 18,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000/- Transport charges Rs. 2,000/- Loss of income Rs. 50,000/-Total... Rs.1,80,000/- Aggrieved by that award, the Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification and that therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P26 were marked. On the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation one Mr. Sathyaseelan, driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked to support their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. PW5 is the Doctor Rajamanickam. PW6 is the Doctor Semporjothi. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of the Rough sketch. Ex.P5 are the medical receipts and bills. Ex.P8 is the proceedings of the District Disbursement Officer. Ex.P9 is the certificate issued by the Auditor. Ex.P13 is the Experience certificate. Ex.P23 is the disability certificate. Ex.P24 is the x-ray. Ex.P25 is also another disability certificate. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 36 years. He is an agriculturist and engaged in the business of selling agricultural products and oil seeds. PW1claimant has deposed that while he was proceeding from Salem to Vellore in a bus bearing registration No.TN-23-N-1127 belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation, the accident had occurred and had sustained grievous injuries all over the body. The claimant was immediately admitted in Government Hospital, Salem, and later, he took treatment at Lotus Appollo Hospital, Erode. He further submitted that immediately a complaint has been registered at Veeranam Police Station, Salem, in Crime No.1054 of 2000 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. He further submitted that due to the accident he lost his teeth and suffered a fracture in his right thigh and swelling in right knee and head and he took treatment for a period of 16 days as in-patient in Lotus Appollo Hospital, Erode, and later as out patient. He further submitted that due to the accident he lost his teeth and suffered a fracture in his right thigh and swelling in right knee and head and he took treatment for a period of 16 days as in-patient in Lotus Appollo Hospital, Erode, and later as out patient. He further deposed that due to the injuries suffered, he cannot sit properly and walk or run for a long time. PW5, Doctor Rajamanickam has deposed that he examined the claimant and issued Ex.P25 Disability Certificate on 09.04.2004. He assessed the disability to the extent of 30%. PW6-Dr.Semporjothi, who is Dentist, has deposed that he examined the claimant and issued Ex.P25 Disability Certificate on 09.04.2004. He assessed the disability to the extent of 15% and stated that due to the accident, the claimant has lost two teeth and an artificial tooth has been fixed and his face was disfigured. After the accident, no business was carried on by the claimant. Ex.A8 is the certificate issued by the Auditor to the claimant for the proof of his earning for the year 1999-2000, in which a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- has been mentioned. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has held that wounds 1 and 4 are grievous in nature and awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/-towards permanent disability. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Transport Corporation submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/-for 45% disability. Normally the Courts used to award Rs.1000/- to 2000/- per percentage of disability. It is clear from the above oral and documentary evidence that after the accident, the claimant is unable to do the business as before due to the disability. There is no dispute that as per disability certificates Exs.P23 and 25, the disability assessed is 45%. Considering the above facts and the documents marked, I feel that the amount awarded under the head permanent disability is just and reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.18,000/- towards medical expenses. Ex.P5 is the medical bills for a sum of Rs.17,8972. Considering the Ex.P5 medical receipts, I feel that the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.18,000/- towards medical expenses. Ex.P5 is the medical bills for a sum of Rs.17,8972. Considering the Ex.P5 medical receipts, I feel that the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering. There is no dispute that after the accident, the claimant took treatment for 16 days as in-patient in Lotus Apollo Hospital, Erode. The Tribunal held that as per Ex.P13-Accident Register, the wound 1 and 4 are grievous in nature. Taking into consideration the above facts, I feel that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges, which I feel is very reasonable and the same are confirmed. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-towards loss of income. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that apart from awarding Rs.75,000/- towards permanent disability, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-towards loss of income. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Cholan Roadways Vs. Ahmed Thambi, reported in 2006 (4) CTC 433 , held that whenever compensation towards permanent disability is awarded, further amount towards loss of income should not be awarded. Applying the principle enunciated in the above Full Bench decision of this Court, the award of the Tribunal in respect of loss of income at Rs.50,000/-is not in accordance with law and is, therefore, set aside. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Loss of income due to disability Rs. 75,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 18,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000/- Transport charges Rs. 2,000/- Total... Rs.1,30,000/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.1,30,000/-as against the compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has fixed the rate of interest at 9% p.a from the date of petition. The accident has occurred on 012. 2000. During the said period, the prevailing rate of interest is at 7.5%. Hence, the rate of interest is modified to 7.5% instead of 9%. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation has submitted that already entire award amount has been deposited as per order of this Court dated 16.03.2005. The accident has occurred on 012. 2000. During the said period, the prevailing rate of interest is at 7.5%. Hence, the rate of interest is modified to 7.5% instead of 9%. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation has submitted that already entire award amount has been deposited as per order of this Court dated 16.03.2005. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified award amount of Rs.1,30,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn. The appellant-Transport Corporation is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount on making proper application. 8. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.