Judgment :- The appellant/respondent has filed the above civil miscellaneous appeal No.1090 of 2005 against the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2003 made in MCOP No.309 of 1997 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Salem awarding a compensation of Rs.69,840/- as total compensation with interest at 9% from the date of petition till date of deposit of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the award granted to the respondent/petitioner in MCOP No.309 of 1997 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Salem, the appellant, Tamil Nadu State Corporation Limited, (Villupuram Division II), Vellore has preferred the above appeal. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows;- On 07.06.1996, the petitioner Mr. R. Chinnakkanan was travelling in the bus bearing registration No.TN-33-N-0654 from Vellore to Salem. When the bus was nearing Kullampatti, at about 3.15 a.m., the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a tree. Due to this some of the passengers in the bus and the petitioners were injured severely. Eight passengers died on the spot and the left leg of the petitioner was fractured. The accident happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver Narayanan of the said bus. The petitioner was working as a Truck driver under one Mr. R. Ramasamy and was earning a salary of Rs.2,000/- per month and daily batta of Rs.50/-. The Karipatti police registered a case against the said driver Narayanan in Cr.No.449 of 1996 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of I.P.C. The petitioner has suffered physical and mental agony and has no income at present. Hence, the petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- with interest at rate of 18% per annum from the date of application till date of payment of compensation from the respondent/Transport Corporation. 4. The respondent in his counter statement has denied the allegations made by the petitioner. It has been stated that the respondents driver was driving the said bus from Vellore to Salem and that when the bus was nearing Karipatti, where the road was in an uneven condition, a lorry appeared in front of the bus with glaring head lights. The driver of the respondent bus was temporarily blinded due to the powerful lights and so applied sudden brake. The driver of the respondent bus was temporarily blinded due to the powerful lights and so applied sudden brake. But the bus was dragged on to the left side of the road and dashed against a tamarind tree. Since the road was an uneven one, there cannot be any rash driving attributed on the part of the driver. At the same time, the bus was dragged to its left side due to sudden application of brakes. The sudden application of brakes was due to the mistake and non compliance of traffic rules by the lorry which came in the opposite direction with glaring head lights. Thus, the driver of the bus cannot be held negligent. It is further stated that the said accident was unfortunate and is a purely an act of god. Further it was submitted that the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioner was excessive. 5. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, framed two issues namely 1) Who is responsible for the accident? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation? If so, to what amount? 6. On the side of the petitioner, two witnesses were examined and exhibits A1 to A45 were marked. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the respondent. 7. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal considered both the statements of the petitioner, who had alleged that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent Act of the driver of the bus and the statements of the respondent, who has alleged that the accident happened due to sudden application of brake of bus due to the glaring head lights of lorry coming in opposite direction. But the respondents have not let in any evidence in this regard. They have neither examined the driver of the bus nor any eyewitness before this tribunal. To prove his claim, the petitioner has examined himself as PW1. In his evidence, he has sated that while he was travelling in the respondent corporation bus, the driver of the bus, drive the vehicle in high speed and in a negligent manner and so the bus hit a tamarind tree on the left side of the road and therefore he sustained injuries. In the cross-examination, he has answered that the bus reached the place of occurrence at 3.15 a.m. and he was awake at the time of accident. In the cross-examination, he has answered that the bus reached the place of occurrence at 3.15 a.m. and he was awake at the time of accident. Ex.A1 is the copy of first information report registered by the Karipatti Police regarding the accident. A perusal of the first information report shows that the accident has taken place at 3.15 a.m. on 07.06.1996 and the police have registered a case within two hours, based on the complaint given by one C. Ventkatesan, in his complaint to the police, he has stated that he had witnessed the occurrence, as he was watching on the road and he had stated that the bus was proceeding with high speed near Karipatti and hit against a tamarind tree. He and others had witnessed the occurrence and some passengers and the driver and conductor with injuries and some passengers were dead. This corroborates the oral evidence of the petitioner. Ex.A6, the copy of motor vehicle inspection report also supports the petitioners claim. 8. Ex.A7, copy of rough sketch show that the bus hit on the tamarind tree found on the left side of road. Ex.A8 is the copy of the charge sheet filled by the police against the driver of the bus. It also supports the case of the petitioner. Considering all these, the Tribunal held that it was only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent corporation bus, that the accident had occurred. 9. Considering the above, it was held by the Tribunal that the owner of the bus i.e. the respondent was liable to pay compensation to the petitioner for injuries, sufferings etc., sustained by him due to the accident. 10. On examination of Ex.A3, wound certificate, the age of the petitioner has been mentioned as 45 years. The petitioner has stated his age in the petition as 47 years. Hence, the age of petitioner was taken as 47 years. The petitioner has stated that his income was Rs.3,500/- per month. But, in support of this, he has produced Ex.A44 driving licence alone. So, the Tribunal has taken a nominal income of Rs.2,000/-per month and annual income as Rs.24,000/-. 11. The petitioner had stated that due to the accident, he sustained fracture on the left leg and also injury on the head, which was stitched, and he is still having injuries on the left leg. So, the Tribunal has taken a nominal income of Rs.2,000/-per month and annual income as Rs.24,000/-. 11. The petitioner had stated that due to the accident, he sustained fracture on the left leg and also injury on the head, which was stitched, and he is still having injuries on the left leg. He has therefore stated that he is not able to drive the vehicle squat properly and walk. He has further stated that in view of the head injury, there is difficulty in his vision. 12. In support of it, he has examined PW2., Dr. S. Elangovan, who is serving as professor at Salem Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital. He has a qualification of H.3 ortho and D. ortho. In his evidence, he has stated that he examined the petitioner on 23.08.2001, who has been injured in the road accident which occurred on 07.06.1996 and issued disability certificate. In his further evidence, he has stated that the petitioner has sustained defused swelling on the left leg chronic alcer to discharge left leg weakness in left leg and unable to walk on uneven surface and the petitioner has pain while walking. He has further stated that the petitioner has undergone plastic surgery and that he cannot run. He has stated that the petitioner has sustained partial, permanent disability to an extent of 35%. But, in his evidence he admitted that the petitioner has fracture on the left leg and that he examined the petitioner nearly after 5 years after the accident. As such, the Tribunal took only a partial permanent disability sustained by petitioner as 15%. Taking 15% partial permanent disability and multiplier of 13, the compensation was fixed as 2000 X 12 X13 X 15/100 = Rs.46,800/- 13. PW2, doctor Elangovan has stated that on the two injuries suffered by the petitioner, puss is coming out from the affected portion in one of the left leg and this was taken as a grievous injury. A sum of Rs.5,000/-was allotted towards pain and suffering and a sum of Rs.5,000/- was allotted towards mental agony undergone by the petitioner. A sum of Rs.8,040/- was granted to petitioner as medical expenses, ward bills etc., as per Ex.A43. Towards extra nourishment, an award of Rs.500/-was granted. A sum of Rs.5,000/-was allotted towards pain and suffering and a sum of Rs.5,000/- was allotted towards mental agony undergone by the petitioner. A sum of Rs.8,040/- was granted to petitioner as medical expenses, ward bills etc., as per Ex.A43. Towards extra nourishment, an award of Rs.500/-was granted. Further taking into account, that the petitioner had taken treatment as inpatient from 10.06.1996 to 18.06.1996 at Kumaran hospital, Coimbatore and prior to this he had taken treatment from 18.06.1996 to 26.06.1996, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2000 x 2 = Rs.4,000/-as loss of income for two months. A sum of Rs.500/-was granted for transport expenses. In total, a sum of Rs.69,840/- was fixed as compensation to the petitioner to be paid by the respondent with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till date of payment of compensation within two months. The entire amount was ordered to be invested in any one of the nationalised bank for a period of three years. The petitioner was permitted to withdraw the interest accrued once in three months from the bank. Advocate fee fixed was Rs.3,115/- and petitioner was directed to pay the court fee for compensation awarded. 14. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the accident was not caused due to the negligence of bus driver, but it had happened due to lorry drivers negligence and so the owner of the lorry and insurance party are necessary parties. Further, the learned counsel has disputed the first information report, plan and charge sheet on the grounds that these documents were not marked through the investigating authority. The Motor accidents claims Tribunal ought to have fixed only contributory negligence on the part of the driver. The treatment records and medical bills were marked through PW1 only. The Tribunal had also awarded compensation to the claimant on the below mentioned heads and these are erroneous. They are Rs.40,000/- awarded for disability, Rs.5,000/-for pain and suffering, mental agony Rs.5000/- medical expenses Rs.8040/- and nutrition Rs.500 and loss of income Rs.4000/-. 15. For the foregoing reasons and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation only after the negligence issue was decided in favour of the claimant. They are Rs.40,000/- awarded for disability, Rs.5,000/-for pain and suffering, mental agony Rs.5000/- medical expenses Rs.8040/- and nutrition Rs.500 and loss of income Rs.4000/-. 15. For the foregoing reasons and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation only after the negligence issue was decided in favour of the claimant. Hence, the compensation of Rs.69,840/- awarded to the claimant under the heads of loss of income for partial permanent disability = Rs.46,800; as per second schedule of 163(A) of Motor Vehicles Act and this is confirmed by the this Court. Rs.5,000 awarded for pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/- awarded for mental agony, Rs.8040/- for medical expenses and Rs.500/-for nutrition and Rs.4,000/- for loss of income for two months during treatment, Rs.500/-for extra expenditure for transport all are found to be reasonable. The rate of interest on compensation was only 9% which is equitable and fair. As such, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal Subordinate Court, Salem in MCOP No.309 of 1997, dated 28.01.2003. Therefore the award is confirmed. 16. Already this Court has directed the appellant to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest into the credit of MCOP No.309 of 1997 on the file of Principle Subordinate Court, Salem. Further, the Court has permitted the claimant to withdraw a portion of the claim amount. It is open to the respondent/claimant to receive the balance amount with interest lying to the credit of MCOP No.309 of 1997 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal Subordinate Court, Salem, by filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law. 17. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /Principal Subordinate Court, Salem in MCOP No.309 of 1997 is confirmed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs in the appeal.