JUDGMENT:- 1. The appellant/2nd respondent-Transport Corporation has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal praying for reduction of compensation as against the award dated 28.4.2006 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.39 of 2004 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Madurantakam. 2. The 1st respondent herein, who is the claimant in the above O.P, has filed claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.3 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in motor accident. The petitioner has contended in the claim petition that on 3.1.2004, at about 10 hours, while the petitioner was riding TVS Champ bearing Regn.No.TN-21-X-6845 from south to north at a normal speed on the proper side of GST Road, the appellant/2nd respondent-Corporation bus bearing Regn.No.TN-32-X-1748, driven by the second respondent-driver, who is the first respondent in the main O.P, came in the same direction in a rash and negligent manner and over speed and hit against the abovesaid TVS Champ and in the said accident, the petitioner sustained six injuries and was admitted as in-patient in Government Hospital, Chengalpattu from 3.1.2004 to 6.1.2004 and in Government Hospital, Chennai from 6.1.2004 to 20.1.2004 and he was taking treatment as out-patient till filing the petition. It is further contended by the petitioner that at the time of accident, he was 35 years old and was working as Rice Mill Driver in Duraisamy Rice Mill and earning Rs.4,500/-pm and therefore claimed compensation of Rs.3 lakhs from the appellant/2nd respondent as owner of the bus. 3. It is further contended by the petitioner that at the time of accident, he was 35 years old and was working as Rice Mill Driver in Duraisamy Rice Mill and earning Rs.4,500/-pm and therefore claimed compensation of Rs.3 lakhs from the appellant/2nd respondent as owner of the bus. 3. The second respondent-driver of the bus/first respondent in the O.P remained exparte before the Tribunal and the appellant/2nd respondent contested the case before the Tribunal by contending that on 3.1.2004, the appellant/2nd respondent bus was on its trip from Kallakurichi to Chennai and while nearing Maduranthakam at Endathur Koot Road, the south to north direction road was closed due to some repair and hence all the vehicles were diverted into one way road and the appellant/2nd respondent bus was proceeding to Maduranthakam in slow speed and at that time, the petitioner was riding his TVS Champ with high speed and in rash and negligent manner and could not notice the bus and hit himself in the bus and sustained injuries and the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the claimant and the petition was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party and the claim of compensation is highly excessive and hence the appellant/2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation and further contended that the claimant should prove the age, avocation and income, nature of injuries sustained, period of treatment, medical expenses and disability. 4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, has examined himself as PW.1 and examined the doctor as PW.2 and marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15 and on the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation, the driver of the bus was examined as RW.1 and no document was marked. 5. On consideration of the abovesaid oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has held that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the second respondent/first respondent-driver of the appellant/2nd respondent bus. 6. With regard to compensation, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- for permanent disability and Rs.80,000/- for grievous injuries and totally awarded Rs.1,20,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum as compensation to the claimant. As against the abovesaid award, the claimant has not filed any appeal or cross-appeal and only the appellant, who is owner of the bus, filed this appeal. 7. 6. With regard to compensation, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- for permanent disability and Rs.80,000/- for grievous injuries and totally awarded Rs.1,20,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum as compensation to the claimant. As against the abovesaid award, the claimant has not filed any appeal or cross-appeal and only the appellant, who is owner of the bus, filed this appeal. 7. With regard to negligence aspect, on the side of the claimant, has examined himself as injured witness and has deposed that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of RW.1, who is driver of the bus. Further, on the side of the claimant, has marked Ex.P1-copy of FIR, in which, criminal case was also registered as against the driver of the bus. The abovesaid oral and documentary evidence reveal that the accident was occurred as alleged in the claim petition. 8. On the side of the appellant has examined the driver, who is the first respondent in the O.P. The first respondent remained exparte in the O.P proceedings, but at the time of trial, deposed as RW.1. 9. In the counter itself, the appellant has stated that on the date of accident, the road was closed due to some repair and hence all vehicles were diverted into one-way and the appellant bus also proceeded to Maduranthakam and at that time, the accident was occurred. Except the oral testimony of interested witness i.e. RW.1, there is no other oral and documentary evidence to prove the abovesaid fact. The abovesaid averments reveal that RW.1 drove the bus in a wrong side and therefore the accident was occurred. RW.1 has falsely deposed to escape from the criminal proceedings and hence the Tribunal has correctly held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of RW.1, driver of the appellant-bus. 10. With regard to compensation, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,20,000/-. With regard to injuries sustained, claimant himself examined as PW.1 and also examined the doctor as PW.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P15 documents. The abovesaid oral and documentary evidence reveal that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the abovesaid accident and due to injuries, he sustained 40% disability. According to the claimant, at the time of accident, he was 35 years old and was working as Rice Mill Driver in Duraisamy Rice Mill. 11. The abovesaid oral and documentary evidence reveal that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the abovesaid accident and due to injuries, he sustained 40% disability. According to the claimant, at the time of accident, he was 35 years old and was working as Rice Mill Driver in Duraisamy Rice Mill. 11. As already discussed, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.40,000/- for 40% disability but awarded Rs.80,000/- under the head of injuries. 12. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal has wrongly awarded Rs.80,000/- under the head of injuries and therefore the abovesaid award is to be modified. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/petitioner also not objected to modify the award amount in the abovesaid head. 13. Considering the nature of injuries, period of treatment, 40% disability and other factors, this Court is of the view that Rs.80,000/-is to be awarded for permanent disability of 40% and further, for loss of income during the treatment period as Rs.10,000/-, for pain and suffering Rs.20,000/-, for transportation to hospital Rs.5000/-and for extra-nourishment Rs.5000/-. Thus, the award of the Tribunal is modified and the award of this Court under various heads are as follows: Permanent disability - Rs.80,000.00 Loss of income during treatment period - Rs.10,000.00 Pain and suffering - Rs.20,000.00 Transportation - Rs. 5,000.00 Extra-nourishment - Rs. 5,000.00 Rs.1,20,000.00 -----------------" The Tribunal also awarded the abovesaid award amount of Rs.1,20,000/- and therefore the appeal is to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award and decree passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. No costs.