Judgment :- The civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the decree and judgment passed in MCOP No.308 of 2001 dated 22.04.2004 awarding a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the application till date of payment of compensation. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner/claimant, D. Kristina Sahaya Marry was working as a P.G. Assistant Teacher in St. Michaels Higher Secondary School at Gingee. On 13.01.1999, at about 09.15 a.m., when the petitioner was travelling in TVS 50 Champ bearing registration No.TN-32-8771 from Ezhusempon village towards Siruvaalai road, respondents corporation bus bearing registration No.TN-31-N-0395 came from opposite direction driven by its driver with high speed and rash, negligent manner, dashed against the petitioners vehicle. In the result, she fell down and had sustained fractures on her left ankle and multiple grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, she was admitted in the Government General Hospital at Villupuram. From there, she was referred to Government General Hospital in Pondicherry. Due to the accident, she was hospitalised for three weeks as inpatient. She lost her income, life style, progress and inability to walk. Hence, she has filed this claim petition against the respondent. Regarding this accident, Kedar police station registered a criminal case in Cr.No.10/99, on an alleged offence under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. The petitioner further alleged that at the time of accident, she was a teacher and her monthly income was Rs.9,777/- per month and she has claimed Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation. 3. The respondent/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram Division has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim of the petitioner. The respondent does not admit the age, occupation, monthly income, the nature of the alleged injuries sustained by the petitioner, period of treatment, medical expenditure and disability etc., The manner of accident alleged by the petitioner is also incorrect. The petitioner was a pillion rider in the TVS 50 Champ bearing registration No.TN-32-8771 which was driven by her husband along with his two daughters in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the respondent bus and thereby she fell down. As such, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and so the petitioner is not liable to get any compensation. 4. As such, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and so the petitioner is not liable to get any compensation. 4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed a common order in MCOP Nos.307 and 308 of 2001. MCOP No.307 of 2001 had been filed by husband of the petitioner and he has claimed a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in that claim. In the present claim, his wife has claimed a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. 5. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal judge framed three issues namely 1) Whether the driver of the vehicle TN-31-N-0395 had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and thereby caused the accident? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed by them and 3) To what other reliefs the petitioners are entitled to. 6. On these three issues, on the side of the petitioners, PW1 to PW3 were examined, namely PW1, Diviyabalan (Petitioner in MCOP No.307 of 2001) PW2, Kristina Sagaya Marry (Petitioner in MCOP No.308 of 2001) and PW3, Dr. Ravindran were examined. Ex. A1 to A18 were marked. Ex. A1- First information Report; Ex. A2 - Accident Register in the name of Diviyabalan; Ex. A3 – Admission and Discharge certificate issued to Diviyabalan; Ex. A4 - Wound certificate issued to Diviyabalan; Ex. A5 – Medico legal case proforma in the name of petitioner; Ex.A6- RC book of the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-31-N-0395; Ex. A7- driving licence of Balakrishnan; Ex.A8- Permit for the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-31-N-0395; Ex. A9 – Pay certificate issued to Diviyabalan by Headmaster; Ex. A10 – Accident Register in the name of Kristina Sagaya Marry; Ex.A11- Admission and Discharge certificate issued to Kristina Sagaya Marry; Ex. A12- Medico legal case proforma in the name of Kristina Sagaya Marry; Ex. A13 – Pay certificate issued to Kristina Sagaya Marry by Headmaster; Ex. A14 – Wound certificate issued to Kristina Sagaya Marry; Ex. A15 – Permanent disability certificate issued to Diviyabalan; Ex. A16- X-ray; Ex. A17 – Permanent disability issued to Kristina Sagaya Marry and Ex. A18 – X-ray. 7. PW1 has adduced evidence and he has marked Ex.A1, i.e. first information report. Ex.A6 is the xerox copy of the R.C. Book of the bus and Ex.A7 is the driving licence of the driver, Ex.A8 is the permit of the bus. A16- X-ray; Ex. A17 – Permanent disability issued to Kristina Sagaya Marry and Ex. A18 – X-ray. 7. PW1 has adduced evidence and he has marked Ex.A1, i.e. first information report. Ex.A6 is the xerox copy of the R.C. Book of the bus and Ex.A7 is the driving licence of the driver, Ex.A8 is the permit of the bus. As per Ex.A1, the first information report, a case has been registered against the driver of the bus on the basis of the complaint of PW1. The manner of the accident is also corroborated by PW2 (the petitioner in MCOP NO.308 of 2001). After considering the evidence of both the petitioners and first information report registered against the driver of the bus, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Judge, has come to a conclusion that the driver of the bus was responsible for the said accident. 8. On the side of the respondent, RW1 was examined. In his evidence, he had adduced that he had driven the bus in a very careful and cautious manner and the petitioner in MCOP No.307 of 2001 was travelling in his TVS 50 Champ along with three other persons. The TVS 50 had hit the bus and as a result the petitioners had fallen down. But the driver of the bus had not filed any complaint in the police station. But he has admitted the accident and that a case has been registered against him. Initially, the driver was arrested in the said criminal case, but later on he was acquitted. The driver admitted that the TVS 50 Champ hit the bus, but there is no possibility for the petitioners to have sustained any injuries. The Tribunal has therefore, concluded that the driver is responsible for the accident and as the bus belongs to the respondent corporation, the respondent is liable to pay compensation. 9. The petitioner (in MCOP No.307 of 2001) has marked Ex. A2, accident register and Ex. A3, discharge slip by Government Hospital, Pondicherry, Ex. A4, wound certificate. As per Ex. A2, Accident Register, the petitioner in MCOP No.307 of 2001 had sustained injuries. The above mentioned exhibits show that the petitioner has suffered a posterior dislocation of right hip. Therefore, injury number one was opined to be a grievous one and three other injuries were found to be simple in nature. PW3, Doctor Ravindran, was examined and he had marked Ex. The above mentioned exhibits show that the petitioner has suffered a posterior dislocation of right hip. Therefore, injury number one was opined to be a grievous one and three other injuries were found to be simple in nature. PW3, Doctor Ravindran, was examined and he had marked Ex. A15, i.e. permanent disability certificate. It disclosed that PW1 suffered 30% disability. At the time of accident, the petitioner Diviyabalans age was 39 years. He had marked Ex. A9, salary certificate. It shows that he was a Secondary Grade Teacher and he was receiving a net salary of Rs.5,512/-. So, the multiplier of 16 was adopted by the Tribunal and compensation of Rs.3,17,491/-was awarded. However, the petitioner restricts his claim to Rs.1,50,000/-. So, the Tribunal has fixed his compensation as Rs.2,00,000/- in total. 10. PW2, the petitioner in MCOP No.308 of 2001 i.e. the respondent in the above appeal, was examined and she had marked Ex. A-10, Accident Register. It disclosed that she had sustained two injuries. Ex. A11 is the admission and discharge slip issued by the Government Hospital, Pondicherry. Ex. A12 is the injury certificate which disclosed that she had sustained one grievous injury and a fracture on the left ankle and a simple injury on the back side of the head. Ex. A14 is the certificate issued by Government Hospital, Villupuram. This reveals that fractures were sustained on left leg and contusion on parietal region of scalp. Ex. A13, is the salary certificate issued by the employer/headmaster, St. Michaels Higher Secondary School, Gingee. As per salary certificate, she has drawn Rs.8,000/-as take home salary. Further the petitioner was aged 35 years at the time of accident. Her annual income is Rs.96,000/-. The disability certificate Ex. A17 showed that the petitioner had suffered 40% disability. The multiplier of 17 was adopted and the compensation of Rs.6,52,000/-was awarded. But, the claimant had claimed only Rs.1,50,000/-. Even then, the learned Tribunal fixed her compensation as Rs.3,00,000/- in total. The advocate fee to be paid by respondent was fixed as Rs.9,000/-. The learned Tribunal further directed that the respondent should deposit Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from date of filing the petition till date of payment within two months. Further, it directed that the deposit amount should be deposited in a nationalised bank. The advocate fee to be paid by respondent was fixed as Rs.9,000/-. The learned Tribunal further directed that the respondent should deposit Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from date of filing the petition till date of payment within two months. Further, it directed that the deposit amount should be deposited in a nationalised bank. The learned Tribunal further directed the petitioner to pay additional Court fee for the compensation awarded in excess of her claim. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant, in the appeal, vehemently argued that the age, disability, period of treatment, nature of injury, monthly income and occupation of the claimant are not correct. Further, the police officer was not examined by the Tribunal regarding the criminal case against the driver of the bus. Actually, only contributory negligence happened in the said accident. Ex. A17, disability certificate, was not issued by the Doctor who had treated her for her injuries. The monthly income of Rs.8,000/-fixed by the Tribunal is also erroneous. 12. For the forgoing reasons and consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court opines that an award of Rs.3,00,000/-passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Judge, Villupuram, dated 22.04.2004 is excessive. The salary certificate has been issued by the headmaster of the St. Michaels Higher Secondary School, Gingee stating that the claimants salary was Rs.8,000/- per month. Regarding the salary certificate issued by the headmaster of the school, the evidence of the headmaster is necessary to establish the salary of the claimant. Further, particulars about the school regarding Government aid, claimants status of employment, whether she is a permanent or temporary employee, has got to be ascertained through documentary and oral evidence for which the employers evidence is necessary. But, in the present case he has not been examined. As such, regarding the income of the claimant, which is an essential circuit in the determination of compensation in accident cases, there has been no clear proof and as such, the circuit is incomplete. In the absence of employers evidence, the learned Tribunals conclusion that the claimants income was Rs.8,000/- per month is an erroneous one. As such, regarding the income of the claimant, which is an essential circuit in the determination of compensation in accident cases, there has been no clear proof and as such, the circuit is incomplete. In the absence of employers evidence, the learned Tribunals conclusion that the claimants income was Rs.8,000/- per month is an erroneous one. However, the Court is of the opinion that the claim made by the claimant was Rs.1,50,000/-only, is reasonable on the basis of medical evidence which disclosed the nature of injuries, treatment etc., Further, the Court confirms the other findings of the claimant regarding age and occupation. Therefore, the claim awarded by the Tribunal in MCOP No.308 of 2001 dated 22.04.2004 is modified as Rs.1,50,000/-with 9% interest from the date of filing the claim petition till payment of compensation into the Court. It is open to the respondent/claimant to receive the balance amount lying to the credit of MCOP No.328 of 2001 by filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law. If the appellant corporation has deposited amount in excess of this Court award, it is at liberty to withdraw the excess amount from the Tribunal in the manner known to law. Resultingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in the above terms and consequently, the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Villipuram in MCOP No.308 of 2001 is modified. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.