JUDGMENT:- 1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred by appellant-Corporation challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and decree dated 12.11.2002, made in M.C.O.P.No.291 of 1999 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court cum Sessions Court), Dharapuram. 2. In the claim petition, the petitioner/1st respondent has stated that on 17.2.1998 at about 4.15 pm, the petitioner tried to get into the bus bearing Registration No. TN 33 N 406 through the front door. At that time, the first respondent moved the bus in a rash and negligent manner with a high speed without following the rules and due to that the petitioner was thrown off from the bus and fell down on the road and he sustained crush injury on both legs. At the time of accident, he was 45 years and working as helper in PWD office at Dharapuram and he was earning Rs.3500/-per month. He took treatment in Government Hospital at Dharapuram and then at Sri Ramakrishna Hospital for ten months. It is further stated that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent and he sustained permanent disability and hence he claimed compensation of Rs.3 lakhs on various heads from the respondents. 3. The owner of the vehicle (i.e) 2nd respondent in the appeal remained exparte in the Tribunal and the second respondent has filed counter denying the age of the claimant, period of treatment, medical expenses, nature of injuries, disability etc. It was also contended that the petitioner suddenly attempted to board the moving bus and in that he sustained simple injuries. It was further contended that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, has examined two witnesses viz. P.Ws. 1 and 2 and marked 8 documents viz. Exs.P1 to P8. On the side of the appellant/2nd respondent, has examined one witness viz. RW.1 and marked one document as Ex.R1. 5. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has held that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent herein/ first respondent in main O.P, who is the driver of the appellant Corporation bus. RW.1 and marked one document as Ex.R1. 5. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has held that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent herein/ first respondent in main O.P, who is the driver of the appellant Corporation bus. With regard to the compensation, the Tribunal has fixed the age of the claimant as 45 and fixed the disability at 15% and calculated the loss of income as Rs.2500 x 12 x 12 x 15% = Rs.54,000/-. For loss of income during the treatment period, the Tribunal fixed at Rs.15,000/-. For transportation charges, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/- and for extra nourishment, Rs.5,000/- has been awarded and the Tribunal awarded the total compensation of Rs.87,974/-. 6. At the time of argument, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant is not challenging the finding regarding negligent aspect but only challenges the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that the Tribunal has wrongly fixed Rs.2,500/-as monthly income of the claimant and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and therefore prayed for reducing the award amount. 7. The learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant has contended that the Tribunal has correctly assessed the age, income, disability and other factors and fixed the compensation and therefore there is no need to interfere with the above said finding. 8. As already stated, with regard to negligence aspect, the first respondent, who is injured petitioner has deposed and marked Ex.P1-copy of FIR, Ex.P2-Rough sketch, Ex.P3-M.V. Report, Ex.P4-copy of wound certificate, Ex.P5-copy of charge sheet. The above said oral evidence of PW.1 and documentary evidence reveal that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent/2nd respondent in OP who is the driver of the appellant bus. 9. With regard to quantum of compensation, the learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.2500/- which is excessive. But considering the age of the claimant and other factors, this Court is of the view that the monthly income of the claimant fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.2500/- is reasonable and no need to interfere with the said finding. But considering the age of the claimant and other factors, this Court is of the view that the monthly income of the claimant fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.2500/- is reasonable and no need to interfere with the said finding. With regard to other heads, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant, the Tribunal has correctly assessed and awarded the compensation on other heads also and therefore there is no need to interfere with the above said finding. Therefore the award passed by the Tribunal is to be confirmed and the appeal is to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. No costs. 11. It is reported that the appellant has deposited the entire award amount before the Tribunal. First respondent who is petitioner in the M.C.O.P is permitted to withdraw the above said amount.