Judgment The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Award and Decree dated 22.01.2003, made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.25 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, awarding a compensation of Rs.49,500/-with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/respondent, Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kumbakonam, has filed the above appeal praying to set-aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. .3. The short facts of the case are as follows: .On 13.04.2001, at 6.30 hrs, the petitioner was travelling in the bus bearing registration No.TN49 N0273 as a passenger. On the same day, at about 10.00 hrs, while the said bus was plying on the Sambava Main Road and driven by its driver with great care and caution, the bus bearing registration No.TN49 N0773, driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the bus bearing registration No.TN49 N0273. Due to the accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was taken to Government Hospital, Mannargudi, where he was admitted as in-patient. 4. The accident was caused solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No.TN49 N0773, by its driver. A criminal case has been registered as Crime No.62/2001, under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. by the Needamangalam Police Station, against the bus driver of the said bus and the same is pending investigation before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mannargudi. The petitioner was an agricultural coolie and earning a sum of Rs.4,500/-per month before the accident. After the accident, he has not been able to do his work. 5. Hence, the respondent as the owner of the said bus is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent, with interest and costs under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. .6. The respondent, in his Counter has resisted the claim stating that on 13.04.2001, when the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN49 N0773 was coming from Kudanthai towards Pattukottai, it was raining heavily. At the alleged time of accident, there was hay spread over the road. When the bus was coming near Sambaveli, the bus driver noticed another bus coming in the opposite direction. At the alleged time of accident, there was hay spread over the road. When the bus was coming near Sambaveli, the bus driver noticed another bus coming in the opposite direction. So, the bus driver, who was driving the bus at a moderate speed, in order to give way to the bus coming on the opposite side, took his bus to the left side of the road. But, as there was wet hay in front of the bus, the bus started to slip out of the road on to a farm land on the left and so in order to prevent the bus from skidding of the road, the bus driver turned to the right and .in the process the bus brushed against the bus coming from the opposite direction. As such, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. Further, the petitioners age, income and occupation were not admitted as true. As such, the second respondent has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely: .(i) Was the accident caused due to the rashness of bus driver and high speed at which he had driven the bus? .(ii) Is the petitioner entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation, which he is entitled to? 8. On the petitioners side, a witness was examined as PW1 and four documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P4. On the respondent side one witness was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal heard the arguments advanced on either sides and scrutinised the documents. 9. The petitioner on being examined as PW1 has adduced evidence that on 13.04.2001, at 6.30 a.m. when he was travelling as a passenger in the bus bearing registration No.TN49 N0273 and when it was nearing Sambaveli, the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN49 N0773, driven with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, had dashed against the bus bearing registration No.TN49 N0273, as a result of which the petitioner had sustained injuries on his chest and left leg. Further, the Tribunal on scrutiny of Ex.P1-FIR, found that the evidence of PW1 is in consonance, with the version in FIR. .10. On the respondents side the driver of the bus bearing registration No.TN49 N0773 was examined as RW1. Further, the Tribunal on scrutiny of Ex.P1-FIR, found that the evidence of PW1 is in consonance, with the version in FIR. .10. On the respondents side the driver of the bus bearing registration No.TN49 N0773 was examined as RW1. The RW1 in his evidence has adduced that the accident was not caused due to his negligence. He has stated that he was driving the bus at moderate speed and on seeing the bus coming on opposite side, he had taken his bus to the left side. But as there was wet lay in front of the bus, his bus tended to skid out of the road and so he had dashed his bus against the bus coming from the opposite direction. The Tribunal, on considering the fact that both the buses involved in the accident belonged to the respondent, decided that the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 11. The Tribunal, then considered the issue of quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner. On a scrutiny of Ex.P4, it is seen that the petitioner had taken treatment as an in-patient at Mannargudi Government Hospital for a period of seven days. From a scrutiny of Ex.P3-Wound Certificate issued by the Hospital, it is seen that the petitioner had sustained a grievous injury in the area between the chest and shoulder and a simple injury on his right leg. The Tribunal on consideration of the nature of these injuries granted an award of Rs.30,000/-. Though the petitioner has claimed that he was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as no documentary evidence was furnished in support of this, the Tribunal considered that the salary of the petitioner could only be taken as Rs.1,500/- per month. The Tribunal considering the fact that the petitioner had been an in-patient for seven days at the Hospital and taking into account that he may need another three months to become normal and go to work assessed his loss of income for three months as Rs.4,500/-. For pain and suffering, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- and for medical expenses and transport expenses, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was granted by the Tribunal. For pain and suffering, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- and for medical expenses and transport expenses, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was granted by the Tribunal. In total, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.49,500/- as award to the petitioner and directed the respondent to deposit the said award together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, into the credit of the M.A.C.T.O.P.No.25 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, within a period of two months from the date of its Order. After such deposit was made, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the entire award. The Court fee was fixed as Rs.108.75 and the excess Court fee paid by the petitioner was to be refunded to him. .12. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal had erred in holding that the appellants driver was rash and negligent in driving the bus and was responsible for the accident; that the Tribunal had erred in awarding a compensation of Rs.49,500/- as compensation for injuries that were not even discussed by the Tribunal. Further, the award of Rs.30,000/-granted by the Tribunal as compensation only for injuries sustained by the petitioner is arbitrary and not sustainable. Rs.10,000/- granted towards pain and suffering is also excessive and the award granted towards transport charges is also erroneous as no acceptable evidence has been furnished in support of this. As such, the learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for re-consideration of the award granted to the petitioner. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that both the buses involved in the accident belonged to the appellant Corporation and as such the appellant Corporation is solely responsible to pay the compensation to the claimant. Due to this accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries and he was admitted at Government Hospital, Mannargudi, as in-patient. The claimant is an agricultural coolie and after he was injured in the accident, he is unable to work as an agricultural coolie. He is the only breadwinner of his family and he was maintaining his family on income earned by doing agricultural work, as a coolie. The claimant is an agricultural coolie and after he was injured in the accident, he is unable to work as an agricultural coolie. He is the only breadwinner of his family and he was maintaining his family on income earned by doing agricultural work, as a coolie. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.4,500/- for loss of income; Rs.5,000/-for medical and transport expenses and Rs.30,000/- for injuries. As such, there is no infirmity in the said award passed by the Tribunal. 14. For the foregoing reasons, facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either sides, the Court is of the view that the claimant is an agricultural coolie and is dependant on his physical strength to earn his income. In the said accident, he had sustained injuries in the area between his chest and shoulder and also on his right leg. Considering the nature of injuries and occupation of claimant, the loss of income of Rs.4,500/- granted by the Tribunal is fair. .15. Though no Disability Certificate has been produced to show the percentage of disability suffered by the petitioner and consequent loss of future earnings, the Tribunal on considering the nature of work as well as the grievous injury sustained by the claimant had awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-towards this. As such, this Court considering the claimant, who is depending on his physical strength to earn his income has definitely been handicapped by the accident holds that he has suffered loss of future earnings and accordingly the sum of Rs.30,000/-granted by Tribunal for injuries could also be treated as an award under the head of loss of future earnings incurred by the petitioner. Hence, this Court confirms the award of Rs.30,000/- passed by the Tribunal. The other awards granted namely Rs.10,000/-under the heads of pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- under the head of transport and medical expenses is reasonable and fair. 16. The award and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.25 of 2002, is therefore confirmed by this Court. 17. At the time of admission, this Court permitted the claimant to withdraw 50% of the award amount, along with accrued interest till the date of deposit, without furnishing security. 16. The award and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.25 of 2002, is therefore confirmed by this Court. 17. At the time of admission, this Court permitted the claimant to withdraw 50% of the award amount, along with accrued interest till the date of deposit, without furnishing security. Now, this Court permits the respondent/claimant to withdraw the rest of the compensation amount with accrued interest, lying the credit of the M.A.C.T.O.P.No.25 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, by filing necessary payment out application, in accordance with law. 18. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award and decree passed by the Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagapattinam, in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.25 of 2002, is confirmed. No costs.