Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the claimants-appellants against award dated 20.11.1997 made in MCOP No. 80 of 1997 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Nagapattinam. 2. Background facts in nutshell are as follows: The present claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased Subramanian. On 15.12.1994 the said deceased was travelling in a Van bearing registration No. T.N.49-3699 belonging to the third respondent from Karuppampulam. While the said vehicle was nearing Eppothumvendran i.e., Ettayapuram main road at Tuticorin District at about 6.00 P.M., the bus belonging to the first respondent bearing registration No. T.N.01.M-3333 came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction and dashed against the van. Due to the impact, the inmates were injured and some of them were died. The said Subramaniam was injured and sustained serious injury. Immediately after the accident, the said Subramani was admitted in Government Hospital, Tuticorin. The claimants who are the wife, two daughters and son of the deceased claimed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the drivers of the 1st and 3rd respondents or not? 2. Whether the respondents 1 to 4 liable to pay compensation to the petitioners? 3. What is the quantum of which the petitioners are entitled to get?" After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent act of the drivers of both the vehicles and fixed the negligence equally. The findings recorded by the Tribunal was that the deceased sustained only simple injury and there is no grievous injury and the deceased died due to some other cause. The claimants have also not produced any evidence in respect of the cause of the death of the deceased. The categorical findings given by the Tribunal is that no material evidence has been produced. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by that award, the claimants have filed the present appeal for compensation. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that eventhough there is no material available on record to prove the injuries sustained in the accident but the deceased Subramaniam died only due to the accident. Undisputedly, the deceased met with accident and sustained injury. The accident had occurred near Tuticorin. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that eventhough there is no material available on record to prove the injuries sustained in the accident but the deceased Subramaniam died only due to the accident. Undisputedly, the deceased met with accident and sustained injury. The accident had occurred near Tuticorin. There is no dispute regarding admission of the deceased in the hospital. Once the deceased admitted in hospital, certainly he would have incurred expenses towards treatment and also he would have incurred further expenses in respect of the transport and the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. Hence, he sought for compensation. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent do not dispute regarding the accident, admission of the injured in the hospital and discharged from the Hospital. Ex.P33 is the Admission and Discharge slip. It is also stated that the deceased was admitted on 19.12.1994 at 5.00 p.m. at Government Hospital, Karuppampulam and discharged on 23.12.1994 at 6.00 P.M. Later the injured Subramaniam was died on 09.03.1995. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants, one Tmt. Jeyam wife of deceased Subramaniam was examined as P.W.10. Ex. A 32 is the Wound Certificate given by the Government Hospital, Tuticorin, in which it is stated that the deceased Subramaniam had sustained the following injuries: 1. A Vertical lacerated would over left side cheek 6" x 1" in size, 2. Swelling over right hand. Doctor who examined the deceased had also opined that all the above injuries were simple in nature. At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 45 years. P.W.10-the wife of the deceased deposed that her husband was used to sell cattle and was earning monthly income of Rs. 2,000/-and was the only breadwinner of the family. Taking into consideration of these facts, Ex. P32-Wound Certificate given by the Government Hospital and Ex. P33 -Admission and Discharge Slip, I am of the view that the Tribunal ought to have awarded a compensation towards Transport, Nourishment and Medical Expenses. Even though there is no details available on record, it is reasonable to award a consolidated sum of Rs. 10,000/-as compensation. P32-Wound Certificate given by the Government Hospital and Ex. P33 -Admission and Discharge Slip, I am of the view that the Tribunal ought to have awarded a compensation towards Transport, Nourishment and Medical Expenses. Even though there is no details available on record, it is reasonable to award a consolidated sum of Rs. 10,000/-as compensation. Therefore, the second and fourth respondents/Insurance Company are directed to deposit of the said consolidated sum of Rs.10,000/-within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the said amount equally on making proper application. 6. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.