Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant/Transport Corporation against the award dated 11.6.2004 made in MCOP No.73/2003 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge) Udhagamandalam. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The first respondent /claimant was injured in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 10.5.2003 at about 2.00p.m .One Sivakumar was riding the scooter bearing Registration No.TN-43-A-3116 with the claimant as a pillion rider towards west on the left side of the Thottapetta to Ooty road near Kannappan Estate. At that time, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-38-N-0305 belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the scooter. Due to the same, the claimant thrown out and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. He claimed a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- 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 belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to any claim? If so, what is the compensation? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant Transport Corporation Bus and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,05,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of claim petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of income during treatment period Rs. 15,000/- Transport charges Rs. 9,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 6,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 70,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/- Future loss of income Rs. 75,000/- Permanent disability Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs.3,05,000/- 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 quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and without basis and justification and when the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-towards 40% disability,the Tribunal ought not to have awarded a further sum of Rs.75,000/-towards loss of earning capacity . Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance and the same has to be set aside. 4. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance and the same has to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion 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 counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. On the side of the appellant/Transport Corporation one Chenniappan , the driver of the bus was examined and no document was marked to support their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. PW2 is one of the customers of the injured. P.W.3 is the Doctor Banuprakash. Ex.P1 is the authorisation letter ;Ex P2 copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P3 is the copy of the Rough sketch. Ex.P4 is the copy of Mahazaar;Ex P5 is Inspection report; Ex P6 is the wound certificate;Ex P7 is copy of Charge sheet;Ex P8 is the copy of Accident Register; Ex P9 is the Discharge summary; Ex P10 is the medical bills; Ex P11 is the Transport bills; Ex P12 is the Entrance chit; Ex P13 is the Disability certificate; Ex P14 is the medical report; Ex P15 is the authorisation letter. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving the driver of the bus and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 19 years. He is a college student and also earning income of Rs.4,000/- from milk vending . PW1-claimant has deposed that the driver of the Transport Corporation came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the scooter. Due to which, he sustained grievous injuries. The driver of the bus was also charge sheeted by E-1,Police Station, Ooty Rural in Cr.No.30/03 under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. P.W.3 the doctor who examined the injured has determined the disability at 40%. Ex P13 is the disability certificate. Further P.W.1 in his evidence deposed that he sustained the following injuries. Due to which, he sustained grievous injuries. The driver of the bus was also charge sheeted by E-1,Police Station, Ooty Rural in Cr.No.30/03 under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. P.W.3 the doctor who examined the injured has determined the disability at 40%. Ex P13 is the disability certificate. Further P.W.1 in his evidence deposed that he sustained the following injuries. 1) Central fracture dislocation left hip 2) Blader neck avulsion with rupture prostatic urethra, 3) fracture superior and inferior publis ramus right, 4) Galeazzi fracture and acetabular fracture,5) Urinal system and sexual(reproductive) system affected 6) Right hand fracture., Immediately he was admitted in Government Hospital, Udhamandalam and later in Ganga Hospital at Coimbatore. He was taken treatment from10.5.2003 to 15.3.2003 and 15.7.2003 to 17.7.2003 as inpatient at Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore. P.W.3 the doctor in his evidence deposed that due to the injuries sustained, he is unable to do the normal work. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-towards 40% permanent disability and also further awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/-towards loss of income. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation submitted that the amount awarded on the above heads are very excessive and exorbitant. Normally the Courts used to award Rs.1000/- to 2000/- per percentage of disability. In this case, after considering the nature of the injury stated above and also as per the evidence of P.W.3 and as per Ex P13, it is very reasonable to award a sum of Rs.2000/-per percentage of disability and if Rs.2,000 is awarded, the loss due to 40% disability works out to Rs.80,000/-(40 x 2000) . There is no dispute regarding the same. In view of the above, a sum of Rs.75,000/-towards loss of income is unwarranted and the same is deleted. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9,000/-towards transport charges. Ex P6 is the wound certificate and Ex P9 is the discharge summary and after the accident he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Ooty and later he was admitted in Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore for better treatment. Hence the Tribunal is correct in fixing the award for a sum of Rs.9,000/- towards transport charges. It is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. Further the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards extra nourishment and taking into consideration that he was taken treatment in various hospital. Hence the Tribunal is correct in fixing the award for a sum of Rs.9,000/- towards transport charges. It is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. Further the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards extra nourishment and taking into consideration that he was taken treatment in various hospital. The award amount is reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 70,000/- towards medical bills. Ex P10 series is the medical bills. The claimant was taking treatment in the Government Hospital, Ooty and later admitted in the private hospital at Coimbatore. Hence the Tribunal is right in fixing a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards medical bills and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-towards pain and suffering. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation stated that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very excessive. After taking into the nature of injury as stated above, a reasonable amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering as against a sum of Rs.30,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of income during the treatment period. He was taking treatment for a period of 32 days as in patient in Government Hospital, Ooty. Ex P9 the discharge summary corroborated the same. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards loss of income during the treatment period which is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards attendant charges. The claimant was in the hospital more than 35 days as inpatient and at that time, an attendant is necessary to take care of him. Hence, a sum of Rs.7,500/-is awarded towards attendant charges. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Permanent disability Rs. 80,000/- Loss of income during treatment Period Rs. 15,000/- Transport charges Rs. 9,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 6,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 70,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 7,500/-Total Rs. 2,07,500/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.2,07,500/-as against the compensation of Rs.3,05,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has fixed the rate of interest at 9% p.a from the date of claim petition on the basis of the prevailing rate of interest, date of accident ie., 10.5.2003, which I feel is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. 7. The Tribunal has fixed the rate of interest at 9% p.a from the date of claim petition on the basis of the prevailing rate of interest, date of accident ie., 10.5.2003, which I feel is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance company has submitted that already entire award amount has been deposited as per order of this Court dated 29.11.2005. The claimant was permitted to withdraw 50% of the deposited award amount with accrued interest. Under these circumstances, the claimant is entitled to the modified award amount of Rs.2,07,500/-with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn. The appellant-Transport Corporation is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount on making proper application. 8. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.