JUDGMENT :- 1. The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / State Transport Corporation Ltd., against the award and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.3003 of 2005, dated 23.10.2009 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, IIIrd Small Causes Court, Chennai. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- On 03.01.2005, at about 09.15 hours, when the petitioner was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN22-AB-6909, on Mudichur Road and when it was near Kulakkarai, a bus bearing Registration No.TN29-N-0379, coming in the opposite direction and driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. He took treatment at Hindu Mission Hospital, Tambaram. Hence, the petitioner has filed a claim for Rs.2,00,000/- as against the respondents. The first respondent is the Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Chennai–2 and the second respondent is the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram Division III, Kancheepuram. 3. The second respondent, in his counter has resisted the claim and denied the averments in the petition regarding age, occupation and monthly income of petitioner, nature of injury, period of treatment and the alleged disability; as well as the manner of accident. It was stated that on 03.01.2005, the respondent bus bearing Registration No.TN29-N-0379, Route No.55M, was proceeding towards Guruvamedu to Tambaram and at about 09.10 hours, when the bus was near Muduchur Road, a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN22-AB-6909, coming in the opposite direction at high speed and ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the right side of the bus and the motorcyclist fell down. Hence, the accident had happened only due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle. 4. On the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed four issues for consideration, namely; “(i) Whether the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN29-N-0379? (ii) Whether the respondent is liable to pay the compensation? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? (iv) To what relief?” 5. On behalf of the petitioner, two witnesses were examined and twenty one documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P21. On the side of the respondent, one witness was examined and no document was marked. 6. (ii) Whether the respondent is liable to pay the compensation? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? (iv) To what relief?” 5. On behalf of the petitioner, two witnesses were examined and twenty one documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P21. On the side of the respondent, one witness was examined and no document was marked. 6. PW1, the claimant had adduced evidence that was in consonance with the averments made in the claim regarding manner of accident. RW1, the driver of the bus stated that on 03.01.2005, at about 09.10 hours, when the bus was proceeding from Tambaram to Guruvamedu and was near Muduchur Road, the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN22-AB-6909, coming in the opposite direction and ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the right side of the bus and as a result, the motorcyclist had fallen down. Hence, th driver of the TNSTC bus, Kancheepuram, is not responsible for the accident. The Tribunal, based on Exs.P1, First Information Report, Ex.P5, the rough sketch and Ex.P6, the charge sheet and on consideration of evidence of PW1, held that the accident happened due to the negligence of the driver of the TNSTC bus. 7. It is seen from scrutiny of Exs.P2, P3, P4, P7, P8, P9, P10, P11, P15, P17, P19 & P20 that the petitioner had sustained fracture of both bones in right leg, fracture of right tibia, condyle infected hemorrhagic contusion in left temporal lobe and right parietal region, diffuse cerebral edema and multiple injuries all over his body. As per Ex.P7, discharge summary, he had taken treatment at Hindu Mission Hospital, Chennai as inpatient from 03.01.2005 to 24.01.2005. He had taken treatment at Christudas Hospital, Orthopaedic Specialty Centre from 08.02.2005 to 10.02.2005, as inpatient as per Ex.P8. From Ex.P9, it is seen that the petitioner had taken treatment at Soundarapandian Bone and Joint Hospital and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., from 04.09.2006 to 13.09.2006. It was also stated in the petition, that the petitioner was a Secretary in Tamabaram Co-operative Housing Society, Chennai and earning a sum of Rs.17,000/- per month. The doctors PW2 and PW3 had assessed his total disability sustained on account of injuries in the accident as 70%. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,71,000/- as compensation. The doctors PW2 and PW3 had assessed his total disability sustained on account of injuries in the accident as 70%. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,71,000/- as compensation. The breakup of compensation is as follows:- Loss of income for two months during medical treatment and convalescent period (Rs.17,000/- x 2) .. Rs.34,000/- Transport expenses; .. Rs.3,000/- Nutrition .. Rs.3,000/-For damage to clothes .. Rs.1,000/- Medical expenses as per Ex.P6 .. Rs.50,000/- For pain and suffering .. Rs.10,000/- For loss of income due to disability of 70% .. Rs.70,000/- The Tribunal directed the second respondent to deposit the said award with interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within two months from the date of its order. 8. Aggrieved by the said award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., has filed the present appeal to set-aside the award. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued in his appeal that the Tribunal had erroneously awarded Rs.34,000/- for loss of income, which was not proved. It was also pointed out that the Tribunal had erred in awarding Rs.50,000/-for medical expenses and fixing the rate of interest at the rate of 9.% per annum. It was also pointed out that the assessment of disability at 70% was high and as such the award of Rs.70,000/-granted by the Tribunal was on the higher side. 10. The learned counsel for the claimant has argued that the Tribunal had assessed the compensation on the basis of oral and documentary evidence and on considering the nature of injuries. The petitioner is an employee at Tambaram Co-operative Housing Society and was earning a sum of Rs.17,000/- per month. After the accident, he is unable to continue as employee in the said Department. Therefore, the loss of earning during medical treatment period is not an excessive one. The awards granted under the heads of pain and suffering and nutrition are on the lower side. Two doctors had assessed total disability as 70%, since the claimant had sustained multiple fractures. 11. Therefore, the loss of earning during medical treatment period is not an excessive one. The awards granted under the heads of pain and suffering and nutrition are on the lower side. Two doctors had assessed total disability as 70%, since the claimant had sustained multiple fractures. 11. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.34,000/- under the head of 'loss of income for two months' and this is on the higher side. Therefore, this Court scales down the compensation granted under this head from Rs.34,000/- to Rs.24,000/-. The rest of the compensation awarded under the various other heads are reasonable. The rate of interest was fixed by the Tribunal at 9.5% and this Court modifies the rate of interest at 7.5% per annum, since the decree was passed on 23.10.2009. In the relevant period, the rate of interest was 7.5% per annum. Therefore, this Court scales down the compensation from Rs.1,71,000/- to Rs.1,61,000/-. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, as it is found to be fair and equitable. 12. On 08.02.2011, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant / State Transport Corporation to deposit the entire compensation amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.3003 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, IIIrd Small Causes Court, Chennai within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of its order. Now, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the modified compensation amount, as fixed by this Court lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.3003 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, IIIrd Small Causes Court, Chennai, after filing a memo along with this order. The appellant / State Transport Corporation is at liberty to withdraw the excess compensation amount lying the credit of M.C.O.P.No.3003 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, IIIrd Small Causes Court, Chennai, after observing necessary formalities of the Court below. 13. Resultantly, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The appellant / State Transport Corporation is at liberty to withdraw the excess compensation amount lying the credit of M.C.O.P.No.3003 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, IIIrd Small Causes Court, Chennai, after observing necessary formalities of the Court below. 13. Resultantly, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.3003 of 2005, dated 23.10.2009 on the file of IIIrd Small Causes Court, Chennai is modified. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.