Judgment :- The appeal is taken up for final disposal at the time of admission itself. 2. The appeal is preferred by the Transport Corporation-appellant against the Judgment and Decree passed on 29.04.2003 in MCOP.No.465/97 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Judge, Tindivanam. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 09.01.1997 at about 00.40 hrs., the injured was riding in his bicycle. At that time, a bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation proceeding from Chennai to Kanniyakumari came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the cyclist. Due to the same, he sustained grievous injuries. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- 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.25,000/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of income during treatment period Rs. 5,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 5,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Disability 18% Rs. 5,000/- Total... Rs.25,000/- Aggrieved by that award, the Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 4. 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 therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is one Dr.K. Ramanujam. Ex.P.1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P.2 is the wound certificate. Ex.P.3 is the salary slip issued by the Saram Cooperative Spinning Mill. Ex.P.4 is the disability certificate. On the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation, no one was examined and no document was marked to support their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is one Dr.K. Ramanujam. Ex.P.1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P.2 is the wound certificate. Ex.P.3 is the salary slip issued by the Saram Cooperative Spinning Mill. Ex.P.4 is the disability certificate. On the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation, no one was examined and no document was marked to support their claim. 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 46 years. He is an employee in Saram Co-operative Spinning Mill and earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. PW1claimant has deposed that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant/Transport Corporation. Due to the same, he sustained the following injuries; Centusion of left side of partietal region; pain overleft knee; pain on left shoulder; Chip fracture of the clavicle grievous in nature; Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Tindivanam and later he was taken treatment in a private hospital for period of 10 days for better treatment. Ex.P.2 is the wound certificate, which is issued by the Government Hospital, Tindivanam. P.W.2 is one Dr.K. Ramanujam, who examined the claimant and he assessed the disability at 18%. In his evidence, he stated that the claimant sustained grievous injuries and there is also centusion of left side of parietal region, pain overleft knee, pain on left shoulder and chip fracture of the clavicle. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-loss of income during the treatment period. The claimant was taken treatment in the Government hospital as inpatient and later he has taken treatment in a private hospital for 10 days. Taking into consideration of the above, it is just, fair and reasonable award amount and the same is hereby confirmed. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses. He was taken treatment in a private hospital for a period of 10 days. Therefore, it is just, fair and reasonable award amount and the same is hereby confirmed. Taking into consideration of the above, it is just, fair and reasonable award amount and the same is hereby confirmed. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses. He was taken treatment in a private hospital for a period of 10 days. Therefore, it is just, fair and reasonable award amount and the same is hereby confirmed. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment, which is very reasonable award amount and the same is hereby confirmed. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards pain and suffering. After considering the nature of injury as stated above, it is very reasonable award amount and the same is hereby confirmed. Further, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards disability of 18%. After taking into consideration of the Doctors evidence and Ex.P.4 (disability certificate), it is just, fair and reasonable award amount and the same is hereby confirmed. The Tribunal also awarded the interest rate at 9%. After taking into consideration of the date of the accident on 09.01.1997 and also the prevailing rate of interest, it is reasonable and the same is hereby confirmed. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation is unable to point out any error or illegality with the award passed by the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, I do not find any illegality or infirmity and warranting interference with the award passed by the Tribunal and the finding rendered by the Tribunal is based on the oral and documentary evidence. It is a question fact. It is not a perverse order and also the amount involved is negligible and the same is in accordance with law. Therefore, the same are hereby confirmed. 7. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2009 is also dismissed.