Judgment :- 1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 10.09.2007, made in M.C.O.P.No.1179 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.IV, Chennai, awarding a compensation of Rs.67,300/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/respondent, The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Division No.III Ltd., Kancheepuram 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 23.04.2001, at about 21.00 hours, the petitioner was travelling as a passenger in the respondents Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN21 N0099 was proceeding from Red Hills to Alamathi. The petitioner was travelling in near the footboard due to over crowding. The driver of the bus had driven the vehicle at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner along with uneven road, as a result the bus had dangerously jolted and the petitioner was lost his grip and fell down off the bus and sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the petitioner is claimed a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-together with interest against the respondent. 4. The respondent has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent denies the allegation made against the driver of the bus. Actually on 23.04.2001, the bus bearing registration No.TN21 N0099 was on its scheduled trip from Red Hills to Thiruvallur, whilst so, at about 21.00 hours when the bus was nearing the vehicle depot bus stop, the petitioner tried to get down from the moving bus and when he slipped and fell down, as such he sustained injuries. Immediately he was taken to the Government Hospital at Thiruvallur for medical treatment, as such the petitioner had invited the accident and sustained injuries. So the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The bus driver had observed all traffic rules and had driven the bus in a moderate speed. The claimants age, income, occupation and nature of injuries are not in accordance with the respondents contention. The claim amount is fairly an excessive one, hence the respondent prays to dismiss the claim petition. 5. The bus driver had observed all traffic rules and had driven the bus in a moderate speed. The claimants age, income, occupation and nature of injuries are not in accordance with the respondents contention. The claim amount is fairly an excessive one, hence the respondent prays to dismiss the claim petition. 5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed four issues for the consideration namely: (i) Whether the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing registration No.TN21 N0099? (ii) Whether the respondent is liable to pay the compensation? (iii)Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? (iv)To what relief? 6. On the petitioners side one witness was examined as PW1 and seven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7.On the respondents side one witness was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked. 7. The petitioner was examined as PW1.The PW1, in his evidence, stating that he had travelled in the respondents Corporation bus on 23.04.2001 at about 09.00 p.m. at that time the driver of the bus had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed resulting in the accident, for which Ex.P5-FIR was registered against the driver of the bus. The petitioner further adduced evidence stating that in the said accident he had sustained severe head injury and he was immediately taken to the Government Hospital at Thiruvallur and then he had received treatment at the Government Hospital, Chennai. The PW1 had marked Ex.P1-O.P.Chit, Ex.P2-Medical Discharge Summary, Ex.P3-Medical Prescription, Ex.P4-Doctors fees, Ex.P6-Disability Certificate and Ex.P7-Case sheet. After considering the evidence of the PW1 and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had awarded the compensation as follows: 1. Rs.10,000/- awarded under the head of loss of earning, 2. Rs.1,000/- awarded under the head of transport costs, 3. Rs.1,000/- awarded under the head of nourishment, 4. Rs.300/- awarded under the head of damages to cloths, 5. Rs.2,000/- awarded under the head of medical expenses, 6. Rs.8,000/- awarded under the head of attender charges, 7. Rs.10,000/- awarded under the head of pain and suffering, 8. Rs.30,000/- awarded under the head of disability, 9. Rs.1,000/- awarded under the head of nourishment, 4. Rs.300/- awarded under the head of damages to cloths, 5. Rs.2,000/- awarded under the head of medical expenses, 6. Rs.8,000/- awarded under the head of attender charges, 7. Rs.10,000/- awarded under the head of pain and suffering, 8. Rs.30,000/- awarded under the head of disability, 9. Rs.5,000/- awarded under the head of loss of earning power, In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.67,300/-as compensation to the petitioner, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. The Tribunal further directed the respondent to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of its Order. In turn the said award amount to be deposited in a nationalised bank for a period of three years in cumulative deposit. The Advocate fees fixed at Rs.2,956/-. 8. Challenging the said Award and Decree, the appellant/respondent, The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Division No.III Ltd., Kancheepuram has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. The Tribunal awarded Rs.8,000/- and Rs.5,000/-under the head of attender charges and loss of earning power respectively are not pertinent. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-under the head of loss of earning, is not proper for assessing the compensation. Hence, the learned counsel prays to scale down the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued that at the time of the said accident, the claimant was aged about 30 years. Further he was a Coolie by occupation, he is depending on his physical strength towards his occupation. After the said accident, he lost his normal physical abilities, so he is unable to perform his normal occupation. Hence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation under the heads of loss of earning power and loss of income, which are pertinent in the instant case. The learned counsel further argued that the injured claimant had sustained 30% disability in the said accident. As such, the injured person is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.60,000/-under the head of disability. Hence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation under the heads of loss of earning power and loss of income, which are pertinent in the instant case. The learned counsel further argued that the injured claimant had sustained 30% disability in the said accident. As such, the injured person is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.60,000/-under the head of disability. But, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- alone under this head, which is on the lower side. As such, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal may not be scaled down. Hence, the learned counsel prays to dismiss the above appeal. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, on scrutiny of findings of the Tribunal and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the view that at the time of the said accident, the injured was a Coolie, he sustained 30% disability due to the said accident andthe involvement of his occupation, the quantum of compensation is not excessive.Hence, this Court confirms the Award and Decree, dated 10.09.2007, in M.C.O.P.No.1179 of 2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.IV, Chennai, as it is found to be fair and equitable. 12. On 21.07.2008, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest and costs, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.1179 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.IV, Chennai. 13. As the accident had happened in the year 2001, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest and costs, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.1179 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.IV, Chennai, after filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law, subject to the deduction of withdrawals if any. 14. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Award and Decree, dated 10.09.2007, in M.C.O.P.No.1179 of 2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.IV, Chennai is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.