Judgment :- 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-State Transport Corporation against the award and decree dated 29.09.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.329 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,(Chief Judicial Magistrate No.II), Krishnagiri. 2. Background facts in nutshell are as follows: The injured Rajammal met with an accident on 22.6.2003 at about 3.00 hours. While the claimant and her daughter were travelling in the bus bearing Registration No.TN29/N/1353 belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation from Hosur to Coimbatore, the driver driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner hit behind the stationed lorry bearing Registration No.TAR 7734. Due to which, the claimant and her daughter sustained severe injuries. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was admitted in Richmond Hospital, Coimbatore as inpatient and took treatment for more than 45 days and then she has taken treatment in private nursing home also. Therefore, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The appellant-Transport Corporation is resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: "1. Who is responsible for causing accident? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation as per the claim made by him? 3. Whether the claimant is entitled to get any other relief? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,50,549/-with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as follows: Loss of Income Rs.1,15,200/- Grievous Injuries Rs. 25,000/- Pain and Sufferings Rs. 5,000/- Extra Nourishment Rs. 3,000/- Medical Expenses Rs. 99,849/- Transportation Rs. 2,500/- Total Rs.2,50,549/- Aggrieved by the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, the Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and contended that as the Tribunal awarded compensation towards loss of income due to disability, it should not be awarded a further sum of Rs.25,000/-towards grievous injury. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant has submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials on record and the facts and circumstances of the case and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard the learned counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked. On the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation one Mr.Thandayuthabani, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and no exhibits were marked to support their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is Doctor Ashok kumar. Ex.P.1 is the First Information Report. Ex.P.2 is the Wound Certificate. Ex.P.3 is the Discharge Summary. Ex.P.4 is the Receipts for Medical Expenses. Ex.P.5 is the Disability Certificate. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash negligent driving of the driver of the bus and the finding is based on the valid materials and evidence. 6. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 58 years. The claimant has stated in his evidence that she was doing cloth business and was earning Rs.3,500/-p.m. But she has not produced any evidence before the Tribunal with regard to her income. However, the Tribunal has fixed Rs.3,000/-as the monthly income of the claimant. P.W.1-claimant had deposed in his evidence that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligence driving of the driver of the bus. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was admitted in Richmond Hospital, Coimbatore as inpatient and she has taken treatment for more than 45 days and thereafter, she has taken treatment in private nursing home also. Due to that accident, the Claimant had sustained following injuries: "1. Comminuted supracondylar and intercondylar fracture Rt. Femur. 2. Open oblique fracture Rt.Tibia with segmental fracture fibula Rt. Side. 3. Crush injury both foot. 4. Fracture Rt.humerus middle third and lower third junction. 5. Due to that accident, the Claimant had sustained following injuries: "1. Comminuted supracondylar and intercondylar fracture Rt. Femur. 2. Open oblique fracture Rt.Tibia with segmental fracture fibula Rt. Side. 3. Crush injury both foot. 4. Fracture Rt.humerus middle third and lower third junction. 5. Multiple injuries all over the body." A case was registered against the driver of the bus in Crime No.351 of 2003 of Avinashi Police Station under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. 7.P.W.1 is the doctor, who examined the injured on 10.9.1994, has fixed the disability of the injured/claimant at 80% and the details of the disability were given in Ex.P5-disability certificate. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has submitted that though, the doctor has fixed the disability of claimant at 80%, the Tribunal had fixed the disability at 40% and the same is not just and proper. Normally, the Courts award Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. But, in this case, P.W.2 the doctor, who examined the claimant has deposed that because of the accident, the injured is unable to bend, sit, stand, cannot move from one place to another without support of others and he is unable to lift any weight using his right hand. Taking into consideration of the same the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,15,200/-towards Loss of Income which is just and proper and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards grievous injuries. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that apart from the award passed towards Loss of Income at Rs.1,15,200/-, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded separately for grievous injuries. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head is deleted. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and sufferings, which is very low. Taking into consideration the materials available on record and the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, this Court feels that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not just and proper and it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- under this head as against a sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/-towards Extra Nourishment. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/-towards Extra Nourishment. This Court feels that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head is very low, hence it is very reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- under this head as against Rs.3,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.99,849/-towards Medical Expenses. The claimant has stated in his evidence that she was admitted in Richmond Hospital at Coimbatore as inpatient for more than 45 days and then she has also taken treatment in private nursing home at Hosur. Ex.P.3 is the discharge summary. Ex.P.4 is the Medical Bills. Ex.P.5 is the wound certificate. It is an actual expenditure incurred by the claimant. Taking into consideration of the same, the sum awarded by the Tribunal under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/-towards transport charges. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head is very low because of the fact that the claimant sustained grievous injuries and she has taken treatment at Coimbatore and Hosur also. Considering the treatment taken by the claimant in two different places, this Court feels that it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- as against Rs.2,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards attendants charges and it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-under this head. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. The accident occurred on 23.6.2003. Considering the prevailing rate of interest during that period, the interest awarded by the Tribunal is modified at 7.5% p.a as against 9% awarded by the Tribunal. 8. The details of the modified compensation are as follows: Loss of income Rs.1,15,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 99,849/- Transportation Rs. 5,000/- Attendant Benefit Rs. 5,000/- Nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.2,39,849/- Therefore, the respondent-claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.2,39,849/- which is rounded off to 2,40,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a as against the compensation of Rs.2,50,549/- awarded by the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation has submitted that the Transport Corporation has already deposited the entire award amount with interest at 9% p.a as per order of this Court dated 05.07.2005. The claimant has already withdrawn 60% of the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation has submitted that the Transport Corporation has already deposited the entire award amount with interest at 9% p.a as per order of this Court dated 05.07.2005. The claimant has already withdrawn 60% of the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Under such circumstances, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified compensation of Rs.2,40,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum, after adjusting the amount already withdrawn, on making proper application. The appellant-Transport Corporation is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount on making proper application. 10. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.