Judgment :- 1. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 112. 2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.36 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Pollachi. 2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 212. 2005. The injured claimant P. Rukmani, along with her husband was proceeding in a Maruthi Car near a place called Vallakkundapuram. According to the claimant, the car was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner. In that accident, the said lady claimant P. Rukmani suffered injuries. She was firstly treated at Government Hospital, Erichanampatti. Thereafter, she was treated at C.M.C. Hospital, Coimbatore and then in Arun Hospital, Pollachi. The Car was extensively damaged. She filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injury suffered and the damage caused to the Car in the accident stating that she is doing agriculture and milk business and earning a sum of 5,000/- per month. 3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. One Kathiresan was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P-1 to P-9 were marked, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.P-1 is the certified copy of FIR dated 212. 2005, Ex.P-2 is the certified copy of charge sheet dated 1. 2006, Exs.P-3 and P-4 are the certified copies of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Inspection Reports dated 30.12.2005, Ex.P-5 is the certified copy of rough sketch, Ex.P-6 is the certified copy of wound certificate of the claimant dated 212. 2005, Ex.P-7 is the photocopy of driving licence of the 2nd respondent Ex.P-8 series are the repairing bills of the car and Ex.P-9 is the photocopy of the R.C. Book of the claimants car. The conductor of the bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the second respondent before the Tribunal. 4. Based on the rough sketch and the allegation contained in the F.I.R., and the charge sheet coupled with the testimony of the P.W.1, the injured claimant, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus. The conductor alone was examined on behalf of the appellant transport corporation. The conductor alone was examined on behalf of the appellant transport corporation. In absence of the evidence of driver and any other material to support the plea of negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruthi Car, the Tribunal clearly came to conclusion that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus. In appeal, the counsel for the appellant is unable to produce any material to show that the driver of the Maruthi Car was responsible for the accident. Therefore, the finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus and the liability fixed on the appellant transport corporation stands confirmed in view of the overwhelming documentary evidence let in on behalf of the claimant. The only serious contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. 5. The Tribunal in this case granted a sum of Rs.7,500/-towards pain and suffering and towards other incidental expenses and losses. As far as the damage to car is concerned as against Rs.50,000/- claimed, based on Ex.P-8, the repair bills and the evidence of P.W.2, the person who repaired the vehicle, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.35,151/-towards repairing charges and a sum of Rs.7,000/-towards painting charges, totally a sum of Rs.42,651/- rounded off to Rs.43,000/-. 6. In appeal there is no material to challenge the quantum of compensation except stating that the compensation granted for the damage of the car is excessive. Counsel for the appellant is not able to show as to how the sum of Rs.43,000/- granted towards personal injury and towards damage to the car which is supported by the evidence of P.W.2 and bills Ex.P-8 series, is excessive. In any event, the sum of Rs.7,500/-granted for pain and suffering and other incidental expenses and loss is very meager. Therefore, this court is unable to find any good reason to reduce the compensation as also the interest at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2005 and the award is of the year 2007. 7. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks for eight weeks time to deposit the award amount and is granted and on such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. 7. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks for eight weeks time to deposit the award amount and is granted and on such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.