Judgment 1. The appellant/respondent-Transport Corporation has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal as against the award and decree dated 29.11.2004 made in MCOP.No.130 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Addl. Sub Judge), Cuddalore. 2. The respondent/petitioner has filed claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in motor accident occurred on 30.9.2003. Briefly, the case of the respondent/petitioner is that on 30.9.2003 at about 12.15 pm, while the petitioner along with his friends was walking with motor cycle from east to west direction at the extreme left hand side of the Villupuram to Thirukoilur Road at Thogaipadi, the appellant/respondent bus bearing Regn.No.TN 32 N 0149 came at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, without following the traffic rules and hit the petitioner and caused the accident and the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant/respondent bus driver. It is further contended that in the abovesaid accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries i.e, (1) missing of teeth, (2) fracture in teeth (3) grievous injuries (4) multiple fractures all over the body and head and he was taking treatment at Government Hospital, Villupuram and also at private hospital. The petitioner has further stated that he was 23 years old at the time of accident and was earning Rs.7,500/-per month as Agricultural contractor and therefore claimed compensation of Rs.5 lakhs on various heads for the abovesaid injuries sustained by him. 3. On the side of the appellant/respondent-Transport Corporation, has filed counter affidavit denying the allegations in the petition and stated that on 30.9.2003, the respondent bus bearing Registration No.TN 32 N 0149 was driven by its driver in a careful manner raising horn and at about 12.25 pm, the petitioner alone riding his motor cycle bearing Regn.No.TN 31 D 3698, came in a rash and negligent manner and crossed the road and the driver of the bus stopped the bus on the left side and inspite of it, the petitioner dashed against the bus and therefore the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner and further contended that the petitioner should prove the alleged injuries, medical expenses and disability etc facts. 4. 4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioner, has deposed himself as PW.1 and examined PW.2-Dr.Vasudevan and marked 9 documents as Exs.A1 to A9 and on the side of the respondent, has not examined any witness and no document was marked. 5. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the petitioner, the Tribunal has discussed in detail and held that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant/respondent bus driver. 6. With regard to compensation, the Tribunal has awarded on various heads as under: "Permanent disability - Rs.30,000.00 Pain and suffering - Rs.25,000.00 Loss of income during the treatment period - Rs. 35,000.00 Extra-nourishment - Rs. 5,000.00 Medical expenses - Rs. 8,500.00 Rs. 1,03,500.00 Aggrieved over the above said award, the appellant/respondent has filed this appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner has contended that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent bus driver and to prove the same, on the side of the petitioner, the injured petitioner himself deposed as PW.1 and also marked Ex.P1-copy of FIR, Ex.P2-copy of M.V.Report and no contra evidence on the side of the appellant/respondent and therefore the petitioner has proved the negligence of the respondent bus driver. 9. Admittedly, PW.1, who is the petitioner in the above said O.P has deposed as injured eye-witness and also marked Exs.P1 and P2 documents and on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence reveal that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent bus driver and no contra evidence on the side of the respondent Transport Corporation. Therefore the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. 10. With regard to quantum of compensation, in the petition it is stated that the age of the petitioner at the time of accident was 23 years and he was agricultural contractor and was earning Rs.7,500/- p.m. The age of the petitioner is not in dispute. The Tribunal has fixed the age of the petitioner as 23 on the basis of Ex.P3-wound certificate. The Tribunal has fixed the age of the petitioner as 23 on the basis of Ex.P3-wound certificate. With regard to income of the petitioner, on the side of the petitioner, has not marked any document and only PW.1-petitioner has deposed regarding his income. Considering the age, avocation of the petitioner, the Tribunal has correctly fixed the income of the petitioner as Rs.6000/- p.m. 11. With regard to the injuries sustained by the petitioner, PW.1 has deposed and also examined one Dr.Vasudevan as PW.2 and marked Ex.P3-wound certificate, Ex.P4-O.P chit, Ex.P5-medical bills, Exs.P7 and P8-X rays and Ex.P9-disability certificate. 12. A perusal of the above said oral and documentary evidence reveal that the petitioner has sustained injuries and the disability was assessed by the doctor as 25%, but the above said doctor himself admitted that percentage of disability issued only approximate and therefore the Tribunal has considered the injuries i.e. loss of two teeth and fixed the disability as 20% and awarded Rs.30,000/-for permanent disability. Considering the nature of injuries and disability, the amount awarded by the Tribunal for the above said head is not excessive and therefore, the award for 'permanent disability' is to be confirmed. 13. With regard to the award for loss of earning during the treatment period, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.35,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the petitioner has sustained only loss of two teeth and not admitted in any hospital as inpatient and only taken treatment as out-patient and therefore the Rs.35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income is excessive. On the side of the petitioner, has not produced any document to prove that the petitioner has taken treatment as inpatient and due to the injuries he was not working for several months. 14. Considering the nature of injuries, treatment and other factors, I am of the view that Rs.6000/- may be awarded for loss of earning during the treatment period. With regard to pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/-. 14. Considering the nature of injuries, treatment and other factors, I am of the view that Rs.6000/- may be awarded for loss of earning during the treatment period. With regard to pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/-. As already discussed, the petitioner has sustained loss of teeth in the abovesaid accident and the disability assessed by the doctor is only 20% and he has not taken treatment as in-patient and therefore the award of the Tribunal towards the above said head is excessive, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant and therefore, just and reasonable compensation of Rs.10,000/- is to be awarded for pain and suffering. With regard to extra-nourishment, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5000/-, which is reasonable and the same is to be confirmed. With regard to medical expenses, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.8,500/-. Considering the medical bills produced for Rs.8,515/-, the said amount is also not excessive and therefore, the above said amount is to be rounded off as Rs.9000/- and the same is to be awarded for medical expenses. 15. Thus, the award of the Tribunal is modified and reduced as under: "Loss of earning during treatment Period - Rs. 6,000.00 Permanent disability - Rs. 30,000.00 Extra-nourishment - Rs. 5,000.00 Medical expenses - Rs. 9,000.00 Pain and suffering - Rs. 10,000.00 Rs.60,000.00 Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs.60,000/-(Rupees sixty thousand only) which carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. 16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and quantum of compensation is reduced from Rs.1,03,500/- and fixed as Rs.60,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. 17. It is reported that the appellant/respondent has deposited the entire award amount of the Tribunal with interest and costs and the respondent/petitioner has already withdrawn 50% of the same. Hence the respondent/petitioner is permitted to withdraw the remaining share amount with interest and costs and the appellant/respondent is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount. No costs.