Judgment :- 1. C.M.A.Nos.2511 of 2005 and 1822 of 2010 are filed by the Transport Corporation and the claimant respectively against the award dated 24.03.2005 made in MCOP No.251 of 2001 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge) Hosur . 2. The Transport Corporation as well as the claimant have filed the above appeals against the same award and, hence, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in CMA.No.2511 of 2005. The claimant-Sharitha met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 09.11.2000 at about 13.15 hours. The claimant was traveling in the bus bearing registration No.TN-29N-0875 belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation in CMA.No.2511 of 2005 from Hosur along with her husband. At that time, a lorry bearing registration No.TN-09-J-2898 belonging to the third respondent and insured with the fourth respondent-Insurance company, which came from Krishnagiri driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the bus. Due to the said impact, the first respondent-claimant sustained head injury and immediately she was admitted in Government Hospital, Krishnagiri. Though she claimed a sum of Rs.22,40,500/-, restricted her claim to Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation before the Tribunal. The appellant-Transport Corporation and the Insurance Company, which insured the lorry, had resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- " 1. Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver or the lorry driver? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to the compensation as claimed? If so, how much compensation she is entitled to?" After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the both the drivers viz.,appellant-Transport Corporation as well as lorry and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,80 000/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Permanent disability Rs. 55,000/- Pain and sufferings Rs. 16,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 1,00,000/-Extra nourishment Rs. 9,000/- -------------------- Total...Rs. 1,80,000/--------------------Aggrieved by that award, the Transport Corporation and the claimant have filed the present appeals. 4. 55,000/- Pain and sufferings Rs. 16,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 1,00,000/-Extra nourishment Rs. 9,000/- -------------------- Total...Rs. 1,80,000/--------------------Aggrieved by that award, the Transport Corporation and the claimant have filed the present appeals. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal by contending that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification and that therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very low and meagre and the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as claimed by the claimant and the Tribunal has not followed the principles of assessment before passing the award and seeks enhancement of compensation. 6. The fourth respondent-Insurance company has not filed any appeal against the award passed by the Tribunal. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. On the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P22 were marked. On the side of the Transport Corporation as well as the Insurance company no one was examined and no document was marked to support their claim. P.W.1 is the husband of the claimant. PW2 is Dr.Ilangovan. PW3 is the claimant. PW4 is one Singari and PW5 is one Veluchamy. Ex.P1 is the Power of Attorney. Ex.P2 is the certified copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P3 is the wound certificate given by the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri. Ex.P4 is the Medical bills. Ex.P5 is the Medical receipts. Exs.P6 and P7 are the disability certificates. Ex.P8 is the X-ray. Exs.P9 and P10 are the C.T.Scans. Ex.P11 is the tender coconut bills. Ex.P12 is the medical notes. Ex.P13 is the medical receipt. Ex.P14 is the report given by the Laboratory. Ex.P15 is the letters given by Sekar Hospital. Ex.P16 is the report in respect of eye test. Ex.P17 is the copy of medical notes. Ex.P18 is the Cardiographic photo. Ex.P19 is the transfer certificate. Ex.P20 is the statement of bills. Ex.P21 is the bill. Ex.P22 is the transport bills. Ex.P14 is the report given by the Laboratory. Ex.P15 is the letters given by Sekar Hospital. Ex.P16 is the report in respect of eye test. Ex.P17 is the copy of medical notes. Ex.P18 is the Cardiographic photo. Ex.P19 is the transfer certificate. Ex.P20 is the statement of bills. Ex.P21 is the bill. Ex.P22 is the transport bills. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the bus and the lorry and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 8. At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 20 years. She is a house wife. PW-3-the claimant deposed in her evidence that while she was travelling in the bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation along with her husband from Hosur, a lorry bearing registration No.TN-09-J-2898, belonging to the third respondent and insured with the fourth respondent-Insurance company and driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the bus and due to which, she sustained head injuries. PW1-the husband of the claimant deposed in his evidence that immediately after the accident a case has been registered in Crime No.660 of 2000 of Kurubarapalli Police Station under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(i) IPC. In the said accident, the claimant sustained following injuries: “1. A diffused contusion over fore head, contusion laceration over right side of the front partial region about 10 x 5 cms bleeding present. 2. Laceration wound over right elbow abrasion 2 x 1 x 1 cms. 3.A diffused contusion over right mandible about 12 x 5 cms. 4.A lacerated wound over right upper arm 2 x 1 x 1 cms. 5. Multiple injuries all over the body. The injuries 1 and 3 are grievous in nature and injuries 2 and 4 are simple. The petitioner referred to CT scan for investigation of the skull.” PW2-Dr.Ilangovan, who examined the claimant, has fixed the disability at 43% towards face disfigurement and the injuries sustained in elbow, 50% towards head injuries and determined the total disability at 69% and issued Exs.P6 and P7 disability certificates. Due to the injuries sustained, the claimant cannot lift heavy articles and she was unable to speak properly. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.55,000/- towards permanent disability of 69%. Due to the injuries sustained, the claimant cannot lift heavy articles and she was unable to speak properly. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.55,000/- towards permanent disability of 69%. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation towards permanent disability and the amount awarded under this head is very low. Normally the Courts award Rs.1000/- to 2000/- per percentage of disability. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained, I feel that it would be appropriate to award Rs.1000/- per percentage of disability and, if Rs.1000/- is awarded per percentage, for 69% disability, the amount works out to Rs.69,000/- (Rs.1000 x 69%) and the same can be rounded off to Rs.70,000/- as against Rs.55,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under permanent disability. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.16,000/- towards pain and sufferings. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the amount awarded under this head is very low as the claimant had sustained head injury. Taking into consideration the injuries mentioned above, I am of the view that it would be reasonable to award Rs.20,000/- under this head as against Rs.16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Exs.P4, P5, P18, P20 and P21 are the medical bills. It is the actual expenditure incurred by the claimant and there is no dispute regarding the same. Hence, the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9000/- towards extra nourishment, which is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards attendant charges. The claimant sustained head injury and other injuries and took treatment at Government Hospital, Krishnagiri and thereafter at Government General Hospital, Chennai for a period of 89 days. Considering the same, it would be reasonable to award Rs.5000/-under this head. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% per annum. The date of accident is 9.11.2000. Considering the prevailing rate of interest during that period, the interest awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:-Permanent disability Rs. 70,000/- Pain and sufferings Rs. 20,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 1,00,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 9,000/- Attendant charges Rs. Considering the prevailing rate of interest during that period, the interest awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:-Permanent disability Rs. 70,000/- Pain and sufferings Rs. 20,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 1,00,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 9,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 5,000/- --------------------- Total Rs. 2,04,000/- Less: Already awarded amount Rs. 1,80,000/- --------------------- Enhanced amount Rs. 24,000/- ----------------------Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.24,000/-(Rs.2,04,000/--1,80,000) with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition. 9. The Appellant-Transport Corporation as well as the fourth respondent-Insurance Company are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.24,000/- (Rs.12,000/-each) with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same on making proper application. P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA,J. raa 10. In the result, C.M.A. No. 2511 of 2005 is dismissed and C.M.A. No. 1822 of 2010 is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No costs.