Judgment :- The appeal is preferred by the Transport Corporation-appellant against the Judgment and Decree in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.699 of 2006 dated 27.01.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (additional District Court), Dharmapuri. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 18.06.1991 at about 1.15 p.m., the injured was the passenger in a bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N-0135 route no.22 belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation for going to his native place. The said bus was proceeding in Dharmapuri to Salem main road towards Salem near Errapatti Rajammal Mill. At that time, the bus driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry, which is coming from the opposite direction from Salem towards Dharmapuri on the left side of the road. Due to the same, the injured was sustained grievous injuries. He claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- 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.60,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss due to disability 25% Rs.50,000/- Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- Total... Rs.60,000/- 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 therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is one Dr.Krishnakumar. Ex.P.1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P.2 is the wound certificate. Ex.P.3 is the disability certificate. Ex.P.4 is the bill for X-ray. Ex.P.5 is the X-ray. On the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation one Mr. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is one Dr.Krishnakumar. Ex.P.1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P.2 is the wound certificate. Ex.P.3 is the disability certificate. Ex.P.4 is the bill for X-ray. Ex.P.5 is the X-ray. On the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation one Mr. Annadurai, driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 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. 5. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 25 years. He is a mason and earning sum of Rs.4,500/- per month. He is P.W.1 and in his evidence, it is stated that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant/Transport Corporation. The driver of the bus charge sheeted for offences under Sections 279, 337 of IPC in Cr.No.480/1991 by Adhiyammankottai Police Station. Due to the accident, he sustained the following injuries; 1.Contusion 8 x 6cm back upper 1/3rd right forearn with bleeding abrasion 3 x 2cm at its centre. 2.Lacerated bleeding injury 2 x 1/4 x 1/4cm lateral side of right forearm. 3.Contusion 3x3cm dorsum of right wrist with sking finger with blood clot. 4.Lacerated injury 5 x 1 1/2cm in right thumb and index finger with blood clot. 5.Multiple injuries all over his body. X-ray wrist of right hand shows: fracture both ulna and radius. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in Government Hospital, Dharmapuri and later he was taken treatment in a private nursing home, Dharmapuri. P.W.2 is one Dr.Krishnakumar and in his evidence, he stated that the claimant sustained multiple injuries and also fracture both ulna and radius. Due to the said injury, he is unable to raise, bend, strack the right hand and also right wrist movements are painful and restricted unable to hold, lift or carry any weight. Due to the same, he is unable to ride any two wheeler and unable to do any work as before. He assessed the disability at 25%. Ex.P.3 is the disability certificate. Ex.P.2 is the wound certificate. Due to the same, he is unable to ride any two wheeler and unable to do any work as before. He assessed the disability at 25%. Ex.P.3 is the disability certificate. Ex.P.2 is the wound certificate. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence and also evidence of the Doctor, the Tribunal has fixed the disability at 25% and awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss due to disability of 25%. Normally the Courts used to award Rs.1000/- to 2000/- for each percentage of disability. After considering the Ex.P.2 (wound certificate), Ex.P.3 (disability certificate) and evidence of the Doctor, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.2,000/- for each percentage of disability. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in awarding Rs.50,000/- towards loss due to disability 25% and the same is hereby confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards pain and suffering. After considering the nature of injury, it is just, fair and reasonable award amount and the same is hereby confirmed. The Tribunal also awarded the interest rate at 7.5%, which is very reasonable and the same is herby confirmed. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation is unable to point out any error or mistake with the order passed by the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, I dont find any error or illegality and warranting interference with the order passed by the Tribunal. It is a question of fact. It is not a perverse order and the finding rendered by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal are hereby confirmed. 6. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is dismissed.