Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant-Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., against the award dated 21.03.1998, made in M.C.O.P. No.3939 of 1995, by the learned IV Judge, Small Causes Court No.IV, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai. 2. Both appeal and cross objection arising out of the same Judgment, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common Judgment. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The respondent/claimant met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 18.09.1995, at about 09.00 hours. The respondent/claimant was travelling in the bus bearing registration No.TN01 N1717, belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation, from Postal Colony to Thousand Lights. The said bus was proceeding along Arya Gowda Road in the south to north direction and was taking a right turn to go along Brindavan Street. The driver of the bus, without noticing a stationery lorry on the left side/northern side of Brindavan Street rashly and negligently turned the bus and the left side of the bus grazed against the said stationery lorry, due to which the respondent/claimant and two others sustained severe injuries. He claimed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation. The appellant Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., resisted the claim. On the basis of the pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Who is responsible for the accident? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, If so, what is the quantum of compensation?" 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 and awarded a compensation of Rs.68,400/-together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of earning during the treatment period Rs. 6,000/- Transport to hospital Rs. 2,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 3,000/-Damage to clothing and articles Dress materials damaged Rs. 400/- Medical expenses Rs. 2,000/-Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/-Loss due to 40% disability Rs. 40,000/- Total...Rs. 68,400/- Aggrieved by that award, the Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., has filed the present appeal and the claimant has filed a cross objection. 4. 6,000/- Transport to hospital Rs. 2,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 3,000/-Damage to clothing and articles Dress materials damaged Rs. 400/- Medical expenses Rs. 2,000/-Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/-Loss due to 40% disability Rs. 40,000/- Total...Rs. 68,400/- Aggrieved by that award, the Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., has filed the present appeal and the claimant has filed a cross objection. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., questioning the negligence as well as the quantum of compensation contended that the Tribunal is wrong in holding that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the accident had occurred and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and also without basis and justification. 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 respondent/claimant submitted that the Tribunal is right in holding that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant Transport Corporation bus. But, the Tribunal awarded low and meagre compensation and ought to have awarded a compensation as claimed by the claimant. The Tribunal has neither considered the relevant material nor the proposal of the claimant. Therefore, this is a fit case for enhancement. 6. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 were examined and documents Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On the side of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked to support their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. PW2 is Doctor Thiyagarajan. PW3 is Amaldoss, who is the Police Officer. Ex.A1 is the photo copy of the Accident Register. Ex.A2 is the Discharge Summary. Ex.A3 is the Scan Report. Ex.A4 is the Ultra Sonogram Report. Ex.A5 is the First Information Report. Ex.A6 is the Disability Certificate. Ex.A7 is the copy of the Sketch. On the side of the respondent one Anbalagan, who is the driver of the bus, was examined as R.W.1. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the claimant is entitled to compensation from the appellant Transport Corporation and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 7. On the side of the respondent one Anbalagan, who is the driver of the bus, was examined as R.W.1. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the claimant is entitled to compensation from the appellant Transport Corporation and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 7. The claimant, who examined as PW1, in his evidence, stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. PW3, who is the Police Officer, in his evidence, stated that the driver of the bus was the cause for the accident and he was charge sheeted under Section 338 I.P.C and Section184 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. Ex.P5 is the First Information Report and Ex.P7 is the Charge Sheet. The driver of the bus was examined as RW1 and in his evidence, he deposed that the claimant was hanging on the rear foot-board of the bus, if, the claimant had travelled inside the bus, he would not have sustained the injuries. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. So, it is a question of fact and the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is confirmed. 8. At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 22 years. He is a Tailor in M/s.Bull Man Exports. In his evidence, he stated that he was earning a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month and also Rs.1,000/-as O.T. per month. Further, he stated that the driver of the bus caused the accident and due to the accident he sustained internal injury in the abdomen, rupture in the liver and kidney and he also sustained head injury and injury in right hand. Immediately, he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Royapettah from 18.09.1995. He further stated that due to the injury, he is unable to do any work as before. PW2 is Dr.Thiyagarajan, who examined the injured. He determined the disability at 60%. Ex.P6 is the Disability Certificate issued by him. Ex.P3 is the Scan Report and Ex.P2 is the Discharge Summary. Immediately, he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Royapettah from 18.09.1995. He further stated that due to the injury, he is unable to do any work as before. PW2 is Dr.Thiyagarajan, who examined the injured. He determined the disability at 60%. Ex.P6 is the Disability Certificate issued by him. Ex.P3 is the Scan Report and Ex.P2 is the Discharge Summary. Further, in his evidence, he has stated that due to the accident, he sustained injuries all over his body, due to the same, he is getting giddiness very often and also stomach ache. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal fixed the disability at 40% and awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/-. Once there is a Doctors evidence fixing the disability at 60%, the Tribunal should not have reduced the disability to 40%. Therefore, the disability is fixed at 60%. Normally, the Courts award Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/-per percentage of disability. In the present case, the Tribunal found that subsequent to the accident, the claimant was also employed. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.1,000/- per percentage of disability. If Rs.1,000/- is awarded, the loss owing to 60% disability works out to Rs.60,000/- as against Rs.40,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering. After taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the disability at 60% and also he was in Hospital for a period of 50 days, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.20,000/-as against Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/-towards loss of earning during the treatment period. The claimant was in Hospital from 18.09.1995 to 17.03.1996. After discharge, he would not attended the work and it was much later that he got another job. Therefore, it is reasonable to award compensation for a period of six months. The Tribunal fixed the income at Rs.2,000/-. So, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.12,000/- as against Rs.6,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-towards transport expenses, Rs.400/- towards damage to cloths and another Rs.2,000/-towards medical expenses. These are very reasonable. Therefore, awards under these heads are confirmed. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/-towards extra nourishment. The claimant was in hospital for more than 50 days. Therefore, it is reasonable to award Rs.5,000/- as against Rs.3,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. These are very reasonable. Therefore, awards under these heads are confirmed. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/-towards extra nourishment. The claimant was in hospital for more than 50 days. Therefore, it is reasonable to award Rs.5,000/- as against Rs.3,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has fixed the rate of interest at 12% p.a from the date of petition. The accident occurred on 18.09.1995. Keeping in view the rate of interest, which prevailed during that period is 12%, which the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Loss of earning during the treatment period Rs. 12,000/- Transport to hospital Rs. 2,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/-Damage to clothing and articles Dress materials damaged Rs. 400/- Medical expenses Rs. 2,000/-Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/-Loss due to 60% disability Rs. 60,000/- Total...Rs. 1,01,400/-Less: Already awarded amount Rs. 68,400/- Enhanced amount Rs.33,000/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.33,000/-with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition. 9. The appellant Metropolitan Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.33,000/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant-claimant is permitted to withdraw the same on making proper application. In respect of the awarded amount by the Tribunal, the claimant is also permitted to withdraw on making proper application. 10. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Cross Objection are disposed of. No costs.