Judgment :- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the decree and judgment, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Cheyyar, dated 33. 2003, awarding a total compensation of Rs.1,40,200/= together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, till date of payment of compensation. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner was proceeding in his bicycle along with his mother on 27. 2001 at 10.00 a.m., The petitioner is a temporary employee in the postal department as postal bag carrier. After dropping the postal bag at V.E.C., he was returning from Brahmapuram Village. The petitioner was proceeding on the left side of the road. At that time, the passenger bus bearing registration No. TN-23-N-806, owned by the respondent Transport Corporation was driven by its Driver in a rash and negligent manner. The bus was coming from the opposite direction and was proceeding from Ranipet to Vellore with high speed. Due to the high speed, the driver lost control and the bus came on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the cyclist i.e., petitioner. In the result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. 3. Regarding this accident, Katpadi Police registered a criminal case in Crime No. 260 of 2001 on an alleged offence under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the petitioner has filed the Claim Petition and claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- against the respondent Corporation, who is vicariously liable to pay compensation. 4. The respondent/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram Division, has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim of the petitioner. The respondent denied the said accident. Actually, on 27. 2001, the bus bearing Registration No. TN-23-N-0806 was driven by its Driver from Muthukadai towards Vellore and at about 10.00 a.m., some passengers got down from the bus and some others had alighted at the Thangal bus stop. At that time, another bus belonging to the respondent Corporation proceeding towards Arcot, stopped on the opposite bus stop and some passengers had got down and some others had alighted. Following this bus, the petitioner tried to overtake the bus between the two buses, when he lost his control and dashed against the respondent bus right side bumper and fell down. In the result, the passenger sustained lacerated wounds. Following this bus, the petitioner tried to overtake the bus between the two buses, when he lost his control and dashed against the respondent bus right side bumper and fell down. In the result, the passenger sustained lacerated wounds. His mother was sitting on the back side of the cycle. She did not sustain any injuries. Due to this accident, the bumper on the right side of the bus was damaged slightly. The right side front headlight was also damaged. The cyclist alone is the cause for the said accident. 5. On the side of the claimant, two witnesses were examined and 6 documents were marked. On the side of the respondent, two witnesses were examined, but no documents were marked. 6. The learned Tribunal framed two issues, namely, (i) Whether the driver of the bus, had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident? (ii) If so, what is the quantum of compensation that the claimant is entitled to? 7. The claimant was examined as P.W.1 and he has stated in his evidence that on 27. 2001 at 10.00 a.m., the accident happened on the Katpadi to Ranipet bus route. The FIR itself disclosed that the accident happened due to the negligence of the respondents bus driver. A case was also registered against the driver of the bus. After perusal of the FIR, the learned Tribunal, recorded that on 27. 2001, at 10.00 a.m., the claimant, Vijayakumar has collected the postal bag from Katpadi Post Office and had driven his cycle and that his mother had sat on the backside of the cycle. While both were travelling near their village, the respondent bus came from opposite direction i.e., from Ranipet to Vellore and dashed against the claimant due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. In the result, the claimants right hand, right leg and forearm were injured grievously. To prove the injuries, the claimant marked Ex.P.2, as Wound Certificate. The doctor who examined the claimant had certified that the 1st wound was grievous in nature i.e., on the left side eyebrow 2x1x1 cms; second wound is lacerated on the right hand thumb impression 2x1x1 cms; and third wound is lacerated on left knee joint 2x2 cms. To prove the injuries, the claimant marked Ex.P.2, as Wound Certificate. The doctor who examined the claimant had certified that the 1st wound was grievous in nature i.e., on the left side eyebrow 2x1x1 cms; second wound is lacerated on the right hand thumb impression 2x1x1 cms; and third wound is lacerated on left knee joint 2x2 cms. X-ray also was taken and it disclosed that right leg bone was fractured and that the second wound was also grievous and that the other injury was simple in nature. On the strength of the above evidence, the Tribunal also accepted Ex.P.3, Out Patient Sheet, Ex.P.2, Wound Certificate, Ex.P.4, Medical Chits for putting bandages. The learned Tribunal on the strength of the claimants evidence and above mentioned four documents has come to the conclusion that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The doctor has also certified 30% disability on the basis of right hand bone fracture. The claimants right had thumb movement has been reduced and his right thumb has changed its position i.e., has become inclined. 8. Further, the claimant had adduced evidence that he was employed as a temporary employee in the Postal Department. Apart from this temporary work, he did business in ground-nut, paddy on commission basis. As such, the claimants monthly income was Rs.4000/= Further, the claimant has stated that he is the only bread winner of his family. This was proved before the Tribunal on his oral evidence and the learned Tribunal had also accepted the same. 9. On the side of the respondent, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and he has stated in his evidence that on 27. 2001, he has driven the bus bearing Registration No.TN 23-N-0806 from Muthukadai to Vellore. On the way, he stopped his bus in the bus stop and some passengers got up and some others had got down. At that time, the claimant and his mother came by cycle behind the bus and tried to overtake the respondents bus in the area between the two buses i.e., between respondents bus and another bus parked on the other side of the road. The cyclist lost control and dashed against the right front side of the bus, on the bumper and fell down. The cyclist lost control and dashed against the right front side of the bus, on the bumper and fell down. The cyclist tried to overtake the bus in a rash and negligent manner and hence the accident happened. The said evidence adduced by R.W.1 was not accepted by the learned Tribunal. In the cross examination, the driver of the bus admitted that he was arrested by the police and released on station bail and he also categorically admitted that FIR was registered against him. R.W.2, one Akbar Basha, Conductor of the Bus was examined. He has stated that as the Bus was proceeding from Muthukadai to Vellore, on the way, the bus was stopped at Thangal Village bus stop. So the passengers got down and others got up. At that time, the claimant and his mother came by cycle and tried to overtake the bus in the path between the respondents bus and another bus which was in the opposite side of the road. So, because of the negligence of the cyclist, the accident happened. Further, from the counter statement of respondent and evidence of both respondents, the Tribunal rejected their evidence and he has concluded that the accident happened due to the fault of the driver of the respondent/State Transport Corporation bus. 10. The Tribunal has come to conclusion on the basis of Ex.P.2-Wound Certificate that the claimants age was 27. The claimant stated that he was earning Rs.4000/= per month from doing commission business by buying and selling paddy and ground nuts; besides temporary work as postal bag carrier. But the Tribunal has not accepted this as there was no documentary evidence for income proof. So, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the claimants income was Rs.1500/-per month from two sources i.e., one from temporary employment in postal department as postal bag carrier and another from agricultural work as coolie. 11. The claimant produced disability certificate and had claimed Rs.35,000/= for disability. The same was granted by the Tribunal, on the basis of disability of 30% as mentioned in certificate and supporting documents i.e., wound certificate. The Tribunal granted the compensation as follows under various heads:- 1) For loss of income Rs.97,200/= this was calculated as follows:- For 30% disability= 30/100x18,000= Rs.97,200/= where Rs.18,000/= is the annual income and 18 is the multiplier adopted for age of 27. The Tribunal granted the compensation as follows under various heads:- 1) For loss of income Rs.97,200/= this was calculated as follows:- For 30% disability= 30/100x18,000= Rs.97,200/= where Rs.18,000/= is the annual income and 18 is the multiplier adopted for age of 27. 2) For loss of income for 12 months Rs.18,000/= 3) For pain and suffering Rs.10,000/= 4) For permanent disability Rs.15,000/= In total, a sum of Rs.1,40,200/= was granted by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal ordered 9% interest from the date of filing the claim petition till date of payment of compensation for the award amount. The Tribunal fixed the advocate fee as Rs.5,800/=. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.15,000/= for permanently disability. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.18,000/= for loss of income. The learned counsel pointed out that the claimant had driven his cycle along with his mother and tried to overtake the respondents bus and lost his control and dashed against the respondents bus. This fact, has been narrated by the respondent, but the learned Tribunal has not accepted it. The learned counsel for appellant pointed out that the Tribunal decided to award Rs.35,000/- for permanent disability, but not included that in the compensation calculation. The learned counsel for appellant further argued that loss of income of Rs.18,000/- which was awarded to claimant is not pertinent. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the driver of the respondents bus had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the cyclist/claimant. At the time of accident, the claimants age was 27 years and he was hale and healthy. Because of this accident, he has lost his physical strength. He could not get his normal strength as before the accident. His job is based only on his physical strength. Further, the learned counsel for respondent argued that the claimants right hand had been fractured permanently. His right hand thumb has also become inclined and has lost its sensitiveness. The learned counsel for respondent further argued that the Tribunals order is a well-considered one. 14. His job is based only on his physical strength. Further, the learned counsel for respondent argued that the claimants right hand had been fractured permanently. His right hand thumb has also become inclined and has lost its sensitiveness. The learned counsel for respondent further argued that the Tribunals order is a well-considered one. 14. For the foregoing reasons, and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, documentary evidence, this Court is of the opinion that an award of Rs.1,40,200/- passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Subordinate Court, Cheyyar in MCOP No.398 of 2001, dated 31.03.2003 is excessive and instead this Court awards the compensation as follows; 1) For loss of earning Rs.97,200/-is accepted by this Court as per formula 18,000 X 18 X 30/100 = Rs.97,200/- 2) For pain and suffering Rs.10,000/-granted by the Tribunal is accepted by this Court, but the compensation award of Rs.15,000/-granted by the Tribunal is set aside by this Court as it is not pertinent and the compensation award of Rs.18,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards loss of income is excessive. As there were no documentary proof to establish loss of income, this Court considering the wound and disability certificate regarding the fractures sustained by claimant on his right hand and right thumb, this Court decides to grant loss of income for two months as Rs.3,000/- 15. As such, this Court awards a sum of Rs.1,10,200/-only as compensation together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, which this Court considers to be equitable and fair on the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. The above said appeal came before this Court on 012. 2005, when the Court permitted the claimant to withdraw 50% of the award amount. The rest of the award amount was directed to be deposited in a nationalised bank under reinvestment scheme. 17. Now, this Courts, therefore, directs that the claimant is entitled to get the balance of Rs.40,100/- together with 9% accrued interest for the said amount. Likewise, the appellant/State Transport Corporation is entitled to receive the balance amount from the Tribunal as per Court procedure. 18. 17. Now, this Courts, therefore, directs that the claimant is entitled to get the balance of Rs.40,100/- together with 9% accrued interest for the said amount. Likewise, the appellant/State Transport Corporation is entitled to receive the balance amount from the Tribunal as per Court procedure. 18. As the accident happened in the year 2001, so it is open to the respondent/claimant to receive the balance amount lying to the credit of MCOP No.398 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Cheyyar by filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in above terms and consequently, the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Cheyyar in MCOP No.398 of 2001 is modified. The parties are directed to bear their own cost this appeal.