JUDGMENT :- 1. The Transport Corporation has come forward with this appeal questioning the correctness of the compensation amount granted by the Court below in favour of the claimant/respondent herein. 2. The claim petition was filed by the claimant stating that on 29.09.1998 at about 9.00 am, when he was proceeding in his two Wheeler - TVS 50 bearing Registration No. TN 29-A-8258 in Dharmapuri to Palacode road, near Muthugoundan Kottai, the bus bearing Registration No. TN-29-N-0452 belonging the respondent corporation, coming in the opposite direction, was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant. In the impact, the claimant sustained injuries on his right front head, cheak, left knee and left thigh. Immediately, the claimant was admitted in Government Hospital, Dharmapuri from where he was shifted to St. John Ambulance Medical College, Bangalore for better treatment. According to the claimant, at the time of accident, he was 27 years, earning Rs.3,000/- per month by doing contract work. Therefore, for the injuries sustained in the accident, he filed the claim petition claiming Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The insurance company resisted the claim petition by stating that the claimant only sustained minor injuries in the accident and therefore, the amount claimed under various heads in the claim petition are excessive and exorbitant. 4. The Court below, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- which is questioned in this appeal by the transport corporation. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would mainly contend that the Court below awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards disability, but another sum of Rs.1,25,000/- was awarded towards future loss of income, which is impermissible inasmuch as the claimant was compensated for the disability sustained by him in the accident. In any event, the amount awarded by the Court below under various head are high and he prayed for interference of this Court. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the Doctor assessed the disability of the claimant at 80% considering that there is neurological disorder sustained by the claimant. Due to the injury in the legs, the legs of the claimant was shortened by 0.5 cm. Further, as per the Division Bench judgment of this Court, a maximum sum of Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability can be granted, but the court below granted only Rs.1,000/- per percentage of disability. Due to the injury in the legs, the legs of the claimant was shortened by 0.5 cm. Further, as per the Division Bench judgment of this Court, a maximum sum of Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability can be granted, but the court below granted only Rs.1,000/- per percentage of disability. At the time of accident, the claimant was 27 years and due to the injuries sustained in the accident resulted in unctional disability, therefore, the Court below is justified in awarding Rs.1,25,000/-towards future loss of income and it cannot be said to be exorbitant or excessive. 7. I heard the counsel for both sides and perused the materials on record. The insurance company admits the date, time, manner in which the accident occurred as also the liability. The appeal is filed only questioning the quantum. 8. It is seen from the records that the claimant sustained injuries in right front head, cheak, left knee, right thigh, fracture in right thigh as well as right hand. After treatment, it was found that there was shortening of right leg by 0.5 cm. Before the Court below, a Doctor was examined as PW3, who was a Neurologist. PW3 in his evidence has deposed that on examination of the scan reports, Exs. P7 and P8 as well as the disability certificate, Ex.A6, he had assessed the disability of the claimant. He further deposed that due to the injury in head, the claimant could frequently loss his memory. He would further depose that the claimant sustained injury to the fifth nerve connecting the brain and therefore, he would suffer from fits very often. Therefore, PW3 would depose that he had assessed the neurological disability sustained by the claimant at 30%. 9. Before the Court below, another Doctor was also examined as PW2, who was an orthopaedician, who assessed the disability of the claimant at 50%. The court below, taking into consideration of the evidence of both the Doctors and by considering the disability assessed by the Doctors at 80%, awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- per percentage of disability and awarded Rs.80,000/- towards permanent disability. 10. With this background, it has to be seen as to whether the compensation awarded by the Court below towards permanent disability is just and proper. The nature of injuries sustained by the claimant is severe which is evident that he was hospitalised from 29.08.1998 to 29.09.1998 at St. 10. With this background, it has to be seen as to whether the compensation awarded by the Court below towards permanent disability is just and proper. The nature of injuries sustained by the claimant is severe which is evident that he was hospitalised from 29.08.1998 to 29.09.1998 at St. John's Ambulance Hospital, Bangalore and also taken treatment subsequently. In any event, the Doctors in their evidence have assessed the total disability at 80% which would reveal the magnitude of the injuries sustained by the claimant. Therefore, in my view, the Court below ought to have granted atleast Rs.1,500/- per percentage of disability. Therefore, if a sum of Rs.1,500/- is awarded, then the claimant will be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.1,500 X 80) towards permanent disability, which will be the fair and reasonable compensation. 11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, when the Court below had granted compensation towards permanent disability, it ought not to have awarded another sum of Rs.1,25,000/- towards future loss of income, which is legally impermissible as per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- awarded by the Court below towards future loss of income is hereby set aside. 12. The court below awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses, which is based on medical bills, therefore, the same is hereby confirmed. 13. The court below awarded only Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges and another sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. Having regard to the age of the claimant, nature of injuries sustained by him and the period of hospitalisation, I am inclined to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- under each head. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to Rs.10,000/- each towards transportation charges and extra nourishment. 14. The court below has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, which I feel is just and proper and in consonance with the injuries sustained by the claimant, therefore the same is hereby confirmed. 15. The court below has not awarded any amount towards attendant charges. Before the court below, an Orthopaedician was examined who has deposed that the claimant sustained fracture injuries in his legs and that he would find it difficult to sit and squat for a long time. Furthermore, the claimant was hospitalised for considerable length of time for the injuries sustained in the accident. Before the court below, an Orthopaedician was examined who has deposed that the claimant sustained fracture injuries in his legs and that he would find it difficult to sit and squat for a long time. Furthermore, the claimant was hospitalised for considerable length of time for the injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, I award a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards attendant charges, which is the fair and reasonable compensation. 16. The court below has not granted any amount towards loss of income during the period of treatment. It is seen from the claim petition that the claimant was working as a Mosaic Contractor and due to the injuries sustained and the consequential hospitalisation, he could not have attended to his work atleast for a period of three months. Moreover, the claimant underwent two surgeries relating to his orthopaedic ailment. Therefore, I hold that the claimant is entitled for a consolidated sum of Rs.10,000 towards loss of income during the period of treatment. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the transport corporation is allowed reducing the compensation awarded by the Court below from Rs.2,60,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum as follows:- Permanent Disability :Rs.1,20,000.00 Pain and Suffering :Rs. 20,000.00 Medical Expenses :Rs. 20,000.00 Transportation charges :Rs. 10,000.00 Extra Nourishment :Rs. 10,000.00 Attendant charges :Rs. 10,000.00 Loss of income during the period of treatment :Rs. 10,000.00 --------------------- Rs.2,00,000.00 --------------------- 18. In view of the reduction of the compensation amount, the transport corporation is permitted to withdraw the excess amount, if any deposited and the claimant is permitted to withdraw the compensation amount determined in this appeal with accrued interest. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.