Judgment :- Since these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arose out of a common road accident and common judgment, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The relevant particulars of the cases are tabulated as under: Amount Name of the awardedSl.No. M.C.O.P.Nos. claimant by the C.M.A Tribunal 1 G.Sriram 3815 of 1996 Rs.1,000/-3665/2005 2 V.Nagarathinam 3817 of 1996 Rs.2,500/- 3666/2005 3 N.Saraswathi 3862 of 1996 Dismissed 3667/2005 3. On 22.9.1996, at about 7.15 p.m, the appellants and the others have travelled in the vehicle TSI-9792, from Alanthur to Valavanur, on the G.S.T.Road, near Pallavaram, at that time, the bus belonging to the State Transport Corporation came driven from the same direction in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the rear side of the vehicle. Thus, the accident took place. 4. The Tribunal granted different amounts as compensation to 12 injured persons and dismissed one claim. Two claimants, who are dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the claimant, whose claim has been dismissed have preferred these appeals. 5. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the two claimants were granted very less compensation. The learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the reason stated by the Tribunal for rejecting the claim of one of the claimant that the doctor has not been examined and no wound certificate has been produced are unacceptable, because he was treated an out-patient. The out-patient chit has been produced. The injured also gave evidence. She had underwent mental agony and other sufferings. She ought to have been awarded a reasonable compensation. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation would contend that the two appellants have been adequately compensated. One claim has been rightly dismissed since she has not sustained any injury. 7. I have considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record and the impugned common judgment of the Claims Tribunal. 8. As far as C.M.A.Nos.3665 and 3666 of 2005 are concerned, the appellants were awarded Rs.1,000/- and Rs.2,500/-respectively by the Tribunal. The accident had taken place in 1996. The Tribunal is duty bound to grant them just compensation. It must commensurate with the sufferings undergone by them. The sufferings of the road accident victims need not be physical sufferings alone. It include mental sufferings also. The accident had taken place in 1996. The Tribunal is duty bound to grant them just compensation. It must commensurate with the sufferings undergone by them. The sufferings of the road accident victims need not be physical sufferings alone. It include mental sufferings also. There are cases where there will be no external injury, but, there may be mental suffering, which will remain in their mind for quite sometime, such as mental agony, mental trauma, nervous shock, loss of enjoyment of life, even partially. These aspects also have to be taken into account by the Tribunal while arriving at just compensation. Though the claimants have suffered simple injuries, they have to take treatment, take nutritious food to recoup their health and underwent considerable amount of pain and sufferings. For all these, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very low. In the facts and circumstances, the said claimants are awarded Rs.4,000/- each. 9. In C.M.A.No.3667 of 2005, the appellant's claim has been dismissed by the Tribunal. It is pertinent to note that the appellant had travelled in the said vehicle along with others. The Tribunal dismissed her claim since the doctor has not been examined and no wound certificate has been marked. In this case also her out-patient chit has been marked as Ex.P.7. The claimant deposed herself as P.W.7. Luckily, the appellant had not sustained any major injury. But, that does not mean no amount could be granted when there are materials to show that she had suffered otherwise. 10. The appellant had travelled in the vehicle . She was also taken to the hospital. She was issued with out- patient chit. The Tribunal did not say that it was bogus. As already stated the suffering of the road accident victims cannot be restricted to physical injuries alone. In view of the accident and witnessing it, definitely, she would have undergone shock and mental trauma. She had been to hospital also. Of course, she has been treated an out patient. It is an unnecessary headache for her. It is all because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. 11. Considering these aspects, the complete dismissal of her claim petition is not correct. In the facts and circumstances, she is awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,000/-. 12. The learned counsel for the Transport Corporation vehemently contended that 12% interest p.a. for the enhanced amount is not warranted. 11. Considering these aspects, the complete dismissal of her claim petition is not correct. In the facts and circumstances, she is awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,000/-. 12. The learned counsel for the Transport Corporation vehemently contended that 12% interest p.a. for the enhanced amount is not warranted. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the award amounts are very meager and thus, the 12% interest p.a awarded by the Tribunal may be maintained. 14. The accident had occurred in 1996. Very meager amounts have been awarded to them. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. 15. In the result, the award of the claims Tribunal are modified. Each appellant is awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,000/-with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the petitions till deposit. The respondent shall deposit the entire amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, less amount, if any already deposited. On such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw the entire award amount by filing proper petition before the Tribunal. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.