Judgment : 1. The Appellant/respondent Transport Corporation has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the Award dated 20.04.2001 in M.C.O.P. No.46 of 1999 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal viz., the Additional Sessions Judge, Vridhachalam in passing an Award of Rs.77,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of deposit, etc., payable by the Appellant/Transport Corporation. 2. On 14.11.1996 at about 15.50 hours, the respondent/petitioner was standing with a TVS 50 near P.V.G. Work shop while so, the Appellant/Transport Corporation’s bus hearing Registration No. T.N.27-0539 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the respondent/petitioner resulting in injuries. For the injuries and disabilities sustained by the respondent/petitioner, a compensation claim of 1,00.000/- was made before the Tribunal. 3. The Claims Tribunal i.e., the Additional Sessions Judge, Vridhachalam on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence had passed an award of Rs.77,000/-along with interest at 9% p.a. payable by the Appellant/Transport Corporation from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of deposit. Further, the Appellant/Transport Corporation was directed to pay the aforesaid compensation amount within a period of two months. 4. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant/Transport Corporation, the Award of the Tribunal is not correct in law because of the fact that it had committed an error in determining the issue of negligence on the part of the Driver of the Appellant/Transport Corporation’s bus and as a matter of fact, the evidence of the Driver of the bus R.W.1 ought to have been taken into account by the Tribunal while determining the issue of negligence. 5. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant/Transport Corporation that the Tribunal without properly analyzing the ingredients of the First Information Report and the evidence of the Driver R.W.1 had come to the wrong conclusion in determining the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. 6. 5. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant/Transport Corporation that the Tribunal without properly analyzing the ingredients of the First Information Report and the evidence of the Driver R.W.1 had come to the wrong conclusion in determining the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. 6. In regard to the amount of compensation of Rs.77,000/- together with interest awarded by the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the Appellant/Transport Corporation urges before this Court that the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.77,000/- as compensation without ascribing any valid reason and also the percentage of disability arrived at by the doctor at 35% was on the higher side, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the respondent claimant and in any event, the Award of compensation of Rs.77,000/- together with interest determined by the Tribunal was certainly an excessive and exorbitant one and therefore prays for allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to prevent an aberration of justice. 7. This Court has heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the Appellant Transport Corporation and noticed his contentions. 8. The Tribunal after considering Ex.P1, First Information Report dated 14.11.1996 in Cr. No.838/96 and also the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report dated 15.11.1996 viz., Ex.A2 and also after analysing the evidence of the claimant viz, P.W.1 had come to the resultant conclusion that the Appellant/Transport Corporation’s bus driver was responsible for the happening of occurrence and since the negligence aspect was not disputed, this Court is in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in regard to the determination of negligence on the Appellant/Transport Corporation’s bus driver and hold that the driver of the Appellant/Transport Corporation bus is responsible for causing of the accident. 9. Coming to the aspect of the quantum of compensation, it is to be pointed out that the respondent/claimant in his Claim Petition had claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 14.11.1996. In the Claim Petition, the respondent/claimant had made mention of that he had sustained the following injuries viz., (i) Fracture and multiple (injuries) over the right foot; (ii) Injuries over the right knee; (iii) Fracture over the left leg; (iv) Fracture over the both hand; (v) Injuries over the fore-head. 10. In the Claim Petition, the respondent/claimant had made mention of that he had sustained the following injuries viz., (i) Fracture and multiple (injuries) over the right foot; (ii) Injuries over the right knee; (iii) Fracture over the left leg; (iv) Fracture over the both hand; (v) Injuries over the fore-head. 10. The learned counsel for the Appellant/Transport Corporation strenuously contends that 35% percentage of permanent disability said to have been sustained by the respondent/claimant was on the higher side as per Ex.A5 the Disability Certificate and the Tribunal in this regard had granted a sum of Rs.70,000/- and for Pain and Suffering, it had awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- and in regard to Extra-Nourishment, it had awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- and in all, it had granted a sum of Rs.77,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by the respondent claimant, which was said to be an excessive one. 11. In Ex.A.3, Wound Certificate dated 14.11.1996 issued in favour of the respondent/claimant , it was mentioned that the bus had dashed against his two wheeler on 14.11.1996 at about 03.50 p.m. and he had sustained (i) A contusion 10 x 5 cm (L) foot (ii) An abrasion 5 x 3 cm (L) foot 12. However on Ex.A4., X-ray Report dated 14.11.1996, it was mentioned as Lt. Leg – “Medial Malicious (L), Rt. Foot – No.” 13. At this stage, this Court appropriately recalls the decision 1970 ACI, wherein Lord Morrison has held that ‘to compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences, is invariably difficult by …no other process.’ 14. Further this Court pertinently points out the decision 1965 (I) All ER 563, wherein Lord Denning has observed that ‘in case of grave injury, where the body is wrecked or brain destroyed, it is very difficult to asses a fair compensation in Money, so difficult that the award must basically be a conventional figure derived from experience or from awards in comparable cases.’ 15. Moreover, Lord Halsbury LC in 1900 AC 113 has laid down that ‘nobody can suggest that you can buy arithmetical calculation established, what is the exact amount of money which would represent such thing as pain and suffering which a person has undergone by reason of an accident.’ 16. Moreover, Lord Halsbury LC in 1900 AC 113 has laid down that ‘nobody can suggest that you can buy arithmetical calculation established, what is the exact amount of money which would represent such thing as pain and suffering which a person has undergone by reason of an accident.’ 16. That apart, in 1922 (2) AC 242, Viscound Dunedin has observed that ‘the true method of expression, I think, is that in Sri calculating damages you ought to consider what is the pecuniary consideration which will make good to the sufferer, as far as money can do so, the loss which he has suffered as the natural result of the wrong done to him.’ 17. In Ex.A4-Wound Certificate, the Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government District Head Quarters Hospital, Cuddalore had opined that the respondent/claimant sustained injuries and fractured in the accident and the said injuries were of ‘grievous’ in nature. In Ex.A5, the Disability Certificate in respect of the respondent/claimant, the Civil Assistant Surgeon had resultantly opined that the respondent/claimant had sustained 35% total disability. 18. As far as the present case is concerned, for the 35% percentage disability, as per Ex.A5, by the respondent/claimant, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/-(calculating a sum of Rs.2,000/- for 1% disability) and the said award of Rs.70,000/-could not be said to be an excessive one but instead in the considered opinion of this Court, the same was a fair, just and equitable one. In respect of injury cases concerning the accident where a compensation claimed by the aggrieved persons, it is the duty of the Court to award a sensible, fair amount of compensation. But at the the same time, a Tribunal/a Court of law cannot award compensation in whimsical and extravagant manner. To put it differently, just because a miserable accident had occurred, it should not be windfall or bonanza for a person to claim a higher compensation. In respect of the injury cases, a just and fair compensation would have to be awarded by a Court of Law so that an affected party who was battered and shattered in an accident arising out of the injuries would have to get into his normal position and frame his mind and therefore, it is for a Court of Law or Tribunal to award a reasonable and legitimate amount of compensation. 19. 19. In the instant case on hand, the Tribunal and had rightly fixed a sum of Rs.70,000/- for 35% diability sustained by the respondent/claimant which in the considered opinion of this Court does not require any interference at this stage of the appeal. Likewise, a sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded to body pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.2,000/- awarded towards Extra-Nourishment expenses were found to be in order. These heads also did not require to be anyway interfered with, is opined by this Court. 20. In view of the qualitative and quantitative discussions mentioned supra and taking note of overall assessment of facts and circumstances of the case in an integral fashion, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal viz., the Additional Sessions Judge, Vridhachalam had passed a reasonable and fair award of compensation of Rs.77,000/- (Rupees seventy seven thousand only) together with interest at 9% per annum, etc., and this Court does not find any material irregularity or patent illegality in the award so passed and resultantly the said award does not require any interference in the hands of this Court and resultantly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails. 21. Earlier in C.M.P. No.9067 of 2003, this Court on 29.07.2003 had passed an interim stay on condition that the petitioner/appellant/Transport Corporation shall deposit the entire amount of compensation including and costs to the credit M.C.O.P. No.46 of 1997 on the file the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Vridachalam within a period of 8 weeks. Therefore on such deposit being made, the respondent/claimant is directed to withdraw the entire award amount deposited by the Appellant/Transport Compensation, if not already withdrawn. 22. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed leaving parties to bear their own costs and consequently the Award dated 20.04.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vridachalam in M.C.O.P. No.46 of 1997 is confirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in the above terms. However in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.