Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant transport corporation against the award dated 10.01.2003 made in M.C.O.P No.143 of 1994 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional Disitrict Court), Dharmapuri. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: One injured Vaggiram met with motor traffic accident on 22.02.1994 at about 08.15 A.M. The said injured was travelling as a passenger in a bus bearing registration No.TN. 29. 0129 belonging to the appellant transport corporation. The injured was travelling in the foot board of the bus and while he was trying to get down from the bus, the driver of the bus suddenly started the bus and drove the same rashly and negligently. Due to the impact, the claimant slipped and fell down from the bus and the back wheel of the bus ran over his legs and due to the same, both legs were crushed and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was admitted in Dharmapuri Government Hospital. He claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. The appellant transport corporation resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus or not? 2. What is the compensation, the claimant is entitled to? 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 bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation and awarded compensation of Rs.1,97,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim and the details of the same are as under:- Greivous injuries =Rs. 20,000/- Simple injuries =Rs. 2,500/- Loss due to 40% disability =Rs.1,20,000/- Pain and suffering =Rs. 30,000/- Extra nourishment=Rs. 5,000/- Transportation =Rs. 5,000/-Total =Rs.1,82,500/- Aggrieved by that award, the appellant transport corporation has filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant transport corporation questioned only the quantum of the award and vehemently contented that the award passed by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and also without any basis and justification. Further, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/-towards grievous injuries and Rs.2,500/- towards simple injuries which are unwarranted and also the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss due to 40% disability which is excessive. Further, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/-towards grievous injuries and Rs.2,500/- towards simple injuries which are unwarranted and also the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss due to 40% disability which is excessive. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same should be set aside. 4. The Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation and it is based on valid materials and evidence. It is a question of fact and it is not a perverse order. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same should be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On the side of the appellant transport corporation, R.W.1 one Narayanan, who is the conductor of the bus was examined and no document was marked to substantiate their claim. The injured was examined as P.W.1. P.W.2 is one Mani, who is the Hospital Record Clerk was also examined. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 dated 09.08.1994 is the copy of the wound certificate, Ex.P3 is the copy of the charge-sheet, Ex.P4 is the motor vehicles inspectors report, Ex.P5 dated 11.06.1996 is the permanent disability certificate, Ex.P6 is the hospital records were marked. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation. It is a question of fact. The finding is based on valid materials and evidence and therefore, the same is confirmed. 6. At the time of the accident, the injured was aged about 40 years. P.W.1 is the claimant. In his evidence, it is stated that he was working as an agricultural cooly and he claimed that he was earning a sum of Rs.2,000/-per month. In his evidence, it is further stated that only the driver of the bus caused the accident and the driver was also charge sheeted by Thoppur Police Station, in Cr.No.65/94 under Sections 279, and 338 of IPC. In his evidence, it is further stated that only the driver of the bus caused the accident and the driver was also charge sheeted by Thoppur Police Station, in Cr.No.65/94 under Sections 279, and 338 of IPC. After the accident, immediately he was admitted in Government Hospital, Dharmapuri, and he was taken treatment for a period of three months as inpatient. In the evidence of P.W.1, it is further stated that due to the accident, he sustained grievous injuries in his legs and all over the body and due to the same, he is unable to do work as before. P.W.2 is one Mani, who is the Hospital Record Clerk in Dharmapuri Government Hospital. In his evidence, it is stated that the injured was taken treatment in the said hospital and subsequently his left leg was amputated. Ex.P6 is the hospital records. Ex.P5 is the disability certificate and it is pertinent to note that there is no evidence available on record to show that who has given the disability certificate and also no doctor was examined. Ex.P2 is the wound certificate, Ex.P3 is the charge sheet. As per the Workmen Compensation Act, the loss of income for amputation of leg is fixed at 50%. Therefore, it is safer to take that there is 50% disability. Normally, Courts award a sum of Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/-per percentage of disability. After taking into consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. If Rs.2,000/-is awarded, the loss due to 50% disability is works out to Rs.1,00,000/-(Rs.2,000x50). Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss due to 50% disability as against Rs.1,20,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal after awarding a sum of Rs.1,20,00/-towards loss due to 40% disability, awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards grievous injuries and a sum of Rs.2,500/-towards simple injuries, which are unwarranted and accordingly deleted. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering. Due to the accident, the injured sustained grievous injuries all over the body and subsequently his left leg was amputated. Therefore, the Tribunal correctly awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering which is reasonable and the same is confirmed. However, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation. Due to the accident, the injured sustained grievous injuries all over the body and subsequently his left leg was amputated. Therefore, the Tribunal correctly awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering which is reasonable and the same is confirmed. However, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation. He was in the hospital for a period of six months as inpatient and after discharge also he was taking treatment as outpatient. After taking into consideration of the same, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards transportation which is reasonable and the same is confirmed. Further, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. After taking into consideration of the nature of injuries and period of treatment available on record, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.7,500/- towards extra nourishment as against Rs.5,000/-awarded by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards attendant charges and loss of income during treatment period. Due to the accident, his left leg was amputated. He was taking treatment in a private hospital for a period of six months naturally, he would not have attended the work for six months. Taking into consideration of the above, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards attendant charges and a sum of Rs.7,500/- towards loss of income during treatment period. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal is 9% per annum. After taking into consideration of the date of accident, date of award and the prevailing rate of interest during that period, the interest rate awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and therefore the same is confirmed. The modified amount of the compensation are as under: Loss due to 50% disability = Rs. 1,00,000/- Pain and suffering= Rs. 30,000/- Extra nourishment= Rs. 7,500/- Transport charges= Rs. 5,000/- Loss of income during treatment period = Rs. 7,500/- Attendant charges= Rs. 5,000/- Loss of amenities= Rs. 5,000/- Total = Rs. 1,60,000/- 7. In the result, the claimants are entitled to modified compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company that the entire award amount has already been deposited and the claimants were also permitted to withdraw 50% of the award amount. 1,60,000/- 7. In the result, the claimants are entitled to modified compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company that the entire award amount has already been deposited and the claimants were also permitted to withdraw 50% of the award amount. Under these circumstances, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the modified compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-with interest @ 9% per annum, less the amount already withdrawn, on making proper application. The appellant insurance company is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount on making proper application. 8. With the above modifications, the appeal is disposed of. No costs.