1. The Appellant/State Transport Corporation has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the award dated 9.2.2004 in M.CO.P. No.318 of 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, viz. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam. 2. The Claims Tribunal, viz., the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam in M.CO.P. No.318 of 2002 on 9.2.2004 had granted a compensation amount of Rs.63,500/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till date of payment, etc. to the Respondent/claimant, payable by the Appellant/State Transport Corporation within a period of 2 months, etc. and passed an Award accordingly. 3. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the Respondent/claimant, witnesses P.W.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked. On the side of the Appellant/State Transport Corporation, no one was examined as a witness and no documents were marked. 4. Being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal, the Appellant/State Transport Corporation has projected this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court. 5. To avoid an avoidable delay, the matter is taken up at the stage of Not Ready In Notice to the Respondent/Claimant in the interest of justice. 6. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/State Transport Corporation, the Tribunal was not correct in coming to the conclusion that the Driver of the Appellant/Transport Corporation bus was rash and negligent and was responsible for the happening of the accident. As a matter of fact, for 20% Disability, the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.40,000/-. 7. It is the contention on the side of the Appellant/State Transport Corporation that the Tribunal had wrongly granted a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards Medical Expenses and it was not right in granting a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards Pain and Suffering and also committed a mistake in awarding a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards Loss of Income during the period of treatment and moreover it went wrong while granting Rs.3,000/- for Nourishment Expenses and in short, the compensation amount of Rs.63,500/- awarded by the Tribunal was an Excessive and Exorbitant one and as such prays for allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to promote substantial cause of justice. 8. 8. In regard to the issue of negligence, it is the evidence of P.W.1 (Father of Respondent/Claimant) that on 11.2.2002, at about 1 p.m., the minor Respondent/Claimant (P.W.2) came to the house for taking lunch and at that time, his son P.W.2 was returning after handing over lunch to him at Mallika Mahal Marriage Hall at Thiruvarur By pass Road and around 1.30 p.m in the after noon, when his son minor Respondent/Claimant (P.W.2) in order to proceed to Pulivallam, was coming in a cycle in Thiruvarur-Nagapattinam By pass Road from East to West and at that time near Valavaikal Roundtana, when he was taking a turn to proceed to Pulivallam, the Appellant/Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No. TN-49/N-0298 came from behind in a Fast Speed, rashly and without sounding horn and dashed against him, as a result of which, his son fell down from the bicycle. 9. It is the further evidence of P.W.1 (father of the claimant) that his minor son (P.W.2) fell down from the cycle as a result of the accident and the right side tyre of the bus ran on left hand of his son and his hand was crushed and also his son sustained injuries all over the body, besides the cycle also got damaged. 10. It is not in dispute that the minor Respondent/claimant (P.W.2) was admitted into the Thiruvarur Government Hospital where he took First Aid Treatment (after the accident) and after getting the said treatment, he took treatment at Thanjavur Medical College Hospital as an inpatient and from 11.2.2002 to 8.3.2002, the claimant was admitted as an inpatient, etc. 11. Ex.P.1 is the Certified Copy of the First Information Report in Crime No.55 of 2002. A perusal of Ex.P.1-First Information Report shows that the complainant is the minor respondent/claimant. In Ex.P.1-First Information Report, the suspected accused is mentioned as Government Bus driver. It also transpires from Ex.P.1-First Information Report that the Thiruvarur Town Police had registered a Criminal case in Crime No.55 of 2002 under Sections 279 and 338 of Indian Indian Penal Code. 12. Ex.P.2 is the Xerox copy of the Accident Register in respect of the minor claimant. In Ex.P.2-Xerox copy of the Accident Register, the manner of accident was mentioned by the claimant. 12. Ex.P.2 is the Xerox copy of the Accident Register in respect of the minor claimant. In Ex.P.2-Xerox copy of the Accident Register, the manner of accident was mentioned by the claimant. Ex.P.3 is the Xerox copy of the Motor Vehicles’ Inspector Report dated 13.2.2002 wherein it is mentioned that ‘the Accident was not due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle’ namely, TN-49-N-0298 HPV/AL/1002’. 13. The evidence of P.W.2/minor claimant is that on 11.2.2002, at about 1 p.m., he was returning to the house in cycle with a view to take lunch in his house and while he was returning after handing over lunch to his father-P.W.1 who was working as a watchman in Mallika Mahal Marriage Hall at Thiruvarur By pass Road at about 1.30 p.m., he was proceeding in a bicycle in order to proceed to Pulivallam from East to West at Thiruvarur-Nagapattinam By pass Road and at that time, when he took a turn at Valavaikkal Roundtana while proceeding to Pulivallam, the Appellant Transport Corporation bus TN-49-N-0298 came from behind in a fast speed, rashly, without sounding horn and also not following the traffic rules and dashed against him. As a result of which he fell down and the bus right side back tyre ran across his hand and crushed. Further he also sustained injuries all over the body, apart from his cycle being damaged, etc. Suffice it for this Court to point out that the evidence of P.W.1-(father) and P.W.2 (minor claimant) coupled with Ex.P.1-First Information Report clearly, unerringly point out that the Driver of the Appellant/Transport Corporation bus bearing No.TN-49-N-0298 was responsible for the happening of the occurrence and that the said Bus Driver drove the vehicle in a rash manner at a fast speed and therefore, this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that the accident had taken place because of the rash and fast speed driving of the bus by the bus driver and the point is answered against the Appellant/Transport Corporation. 14. Coming to the quantum of compensation to be awarded, it is to be pointed out that the Respondent/minor claimant (P.W.2) in the Claim Petition had claimed a Total Compensation of Rs.3,78,000/-and restricted the same to Rs.2,00,000/-. 14. Coming to the quantum of compensation to be awarded, it is to be pointed out that the Respondent/minor claimant (P.W.2) in the Claim Petition had claimed a Total Compensation of Rs.3,78,000/-and restricted the same to Rs.2,00,000/-. In the Claim Petition, the respondent/claimant had made the following claim and the break up figure is as follows: a. Loss of Income from 11.2.2002 till date of filing of the Petition Rs.15,000/- b. Partial Loss of Income Nil c. Per day/week Nil d. Transport Expenses to hospital Rs.5,000/- e. Additional Extra-Nourishment Expenses Rs.5,000/- f. Damage to Dress and Articles Nil g. Other Expenses: Medical Expenses Assistant Expenses Rs.50,000/- Rs. 3,000/- h. Pain and Suffering Rs.1,00,000/- i. Permanent Disability Rs.1,00,000/- j. Loss of Earning Capacity Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs.3,78,000/- Claim is restricted to Rs.2,00,000/- 15. It is the evidence of P.W.2 (Minor Claimant) that he took treatment at the Government Hospital and the treatments provided to him were all free and he earned a sum of Rs.2,500/-per month by working at the Provisions Stores. 16. P.W.3, Doctor-P. Rajagopal in his evidence had deposed that he examined the P.W.2 (Claimant) on 1.9.2003 and found that he had suffered a crush injury on his left hand and his left hand wrist and left hand finger joints were affected and further that he was unable to bend his hand and also it was difficult for him to perform his routine works like Holding, catching, etc., and the Permanent Disability sustained by him was assessed at 20% and the Disability Certificate-Ex.P.7 dated 1.9.2003 was issued by him. 17. The Tribunal had determined the Permanent Disability sustained by P.W.2/claimant at 20% though, P.W.3 Doctor has assessed the same at 29%, since it found that the assessment of 29% Permanent Disability was on the higher side. For 20% Permanent Disability sustained by P.W.2/claimant, the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.40,000/-. Towards Loss of Income, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-. Towards Transport Expenses, it had granted a sum of Rs.500/-. For Nourishment Expenses, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/-. Towards Medical Attendant Expenses, the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.5,000/-. Towards Pain and Suffering, the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Towards Loss of Income, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-. Towards Transport Expenses, it had granted a sum of Rs.500/-. For Nourishment Expenses, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/-. Towards Medical Attendant Expenses, the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.5,000/-. Towards Pain and Suffering, the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Thus, the Tribunal had awarded a Total Compensation of Rs.63,500/-(Rupees Sixty three thousand and five hundred only) to the Respondent/claimant (P.W.2) for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident that took place on 11.2.2002. Also the Tribunal had awarded 9% interest per annum for the amount of compensation awarded by it from the date of filing of the Petition till date of payment. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal directed to Appellant/State Transport Corporation to pay the aforesaid compensation amount within a period of 2 months from the date of passing of the Award. 18. On going through the Award passed by the Tribunal, this Court on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record and also by taking note of the fact that P.W.2/claimant had sustained a crush injury on his left hand which had resulted in Permanent Disability at 20% as assessed by the Tribunal, this Court comes to an inescapable conclusion that the Award of compensation of Rs.63,500/-, etc., determined by the Tribunal is a fair, just and equitable one too and the same does not require any interference in the hands of this Court and consequently the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails. 19. In C.M.P. No.257 of 2006 in C.M.A. No.74 of 2006, this Court on 19.1.2006 had passed an order of interim stay subject to the petitioner/Appellant depositing the entire amount with accrued interest after giving credit to whatever deposit already made to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.318 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate) Nagapattinam within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which the interim stay granted will stand automatically vacated. Further a direction was issued that on such deposit being made, the Tribunal is to invest the same in Fixed Deposit in local State Bank of India initially for a period of one year to be renewed periodically pending further order, etc. 20. Further a direction was issued that on such deposit being made, the Tribunal is to invest the same in Fixed Deposit in local State Bank of India initially for a period of one year to be renewed periodically pending further order, etc. 20. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Resultantly, the Award of the Tribunal viz. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagappattinam in M.C.O.P. No.318 of 2002 dated 9.2.2004 is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Appeal. The Respondent/claimant is permitted to receive the compensation amount to which he is entitled to after filing necessary Application before the Tribunal to declare himself as Major in the manner known to law and the Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate orders thereto as quickly as possible. The connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition C.M.P. No.257 of 2006 is closed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.