JUDGMENT :- 1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred by appellant-Corporation challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and decree dated 30.9.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.881 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Krishnagiri. 2. In the claim petition, the petitioner/respondent has stated that on 29.10.2001, he boarded in the Bus bearing Regn. No. TN 29/N0813 belonging to the respondent-Corporation at Denkanikottah to go to Hosur and while travelling in the said bus, towards Hosur at about 19.30 hours, on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the bus capsized on the left side of the road. It is further stated that the petitioner sustained severe injuries and the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. A criminal case has been registered in Crime No.482/2001 on the file of Denkanikottah Police Station under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC. It is further contended that the petitioner was aged 45 years at the time of accident and he was running finance company and doing coconut and tamarind business and the monthly income of the petitioner was Rs.60,000/- and he claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on various heads. 3. The respondent/appellant has denied the above said occupation and income of the petitioner and also contended that the alleged accident was occurred only due to carelessness of one bicycle rider and also contended that the compensation claimed on various heads are very high. 4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, has examined two witnesses as PWs. 1 and 2 and marked three documents as Exs.P1 to P3. On the side of the respondent, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 5. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has held that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent-bus. The Tribunal has awarded compensation on various heads as under: cross-appeal. The appellant/respondent in O.P alone has filed this appeal requesting to reduce the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7. On the side of the claimant, the claimant himself has deposed as PW.1 and marked Ex.P1-copy of FIR, Ex.P2-copy of wound certificate and Ex.P3-Permanent disability certificate. There was no contra evidence on the side of the respondent. The appellant/respondent in O.P alone has filed this appeal requesting to reduce the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7. On the side of the claimant, the claimant himself has deposed as PW.1 and marked Ex.P1-copy of FIR, Ex.P2-copy of wound certificate and Ex.P3-Permanent disability certificate. There was no contra evidence on the side of the respondent. Therefore, the Tribunal has correctly held that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent bus. 8. With regard to the quantum, the learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that the petitioner has sustained only 25% disability as per the evidence of PW.2 Dr. Ilangovan and Ex.P3-copy of permanent disability certificate, but the Tribunal has awarded Rs.75,000/- for injuries, which is excessive and also contended that the Tribunal has awarded again Rs.20,000/-under the head of permanent disability and further contended that the other amounts awarded by the Tribunal are excessive and hence prayed for reducing the award amount. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that considering the nature of injuries and disability, the Tribunal has correctly awarded compensation and there is no need to interfere with the above said award amount. 10. It is not disputed that the petitioner was aged 45 at the time of accident and he was running finance business and doing coconut and tamarind business and in the accident, he sustained injuries and as per Ex.P3-copy of permanent disability certificate, the disability was 25%. On the side of the claimant, he has not proved by sufficient oral and documentary evidence that after the accident he was not doing any business due to injuries and therefore the Tribunal has correctly not applied the multiplier method but the Tribunal has awarded Rs.75,000/-for 25% disability without sufficient reason. The learned counsel for the appellant has strongly objected that the above said award is exorbitant. 11. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the respondent, 25% disability as per evidence of PW.2 and Ex.P3-permanent disability certificate, I am of the view that the compensation for injuries (i.e) for permanent disability may be reduced as Rs.50,000/- from Rs.75,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.20,000/- under the head of permanent disability. 11. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the respondent, 25% disability as per evidence of PW.2 and Ex.P3-permanent disability certificate, I am of the view that the compensation for injuries (i.e) for permanent disability may be reduced as Rs.50,000/- from Rs.75,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.20,000/- under the head of permanent disability. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has wrongly awarded the said amount and therefore prayed for reducing the above said amount and the Tribunal has not given any sufficient reasons for the award of the above said head again. Therefore the award of Rs.75000 + Rs.20,000/-for the head of permanent disability is to be reduced. With regard to other aspects, the appellant has not seriously objected. 12. Further the learned counsel on both sides admitted that the Tribunal wrongly calculated Rs.1,85,000/- as Rs.1,75,000/- and left out Rs.10,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, disability, age, occupation and other aspects, I am of the view that the award amount passed by the Tribunal is to be modified and reduced as follows:- 13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is partly allowed and the compensation amount is modified and reduced from Rs.1,85,000/-to Rs.1,40,000 with interest at 9% per annum. 14. It is reported that the appellant has already deposited Rs.40,000/- and the appellant is directed to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of payment within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the respondent/petitioner is permitted to withdraw the above said amount. No costs.