Judgment 1. The appellant/ respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A.(MD).No.109 of 2011, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.68 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Aruppukottai. 2. The petitioner, has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.68 of 2005, claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-from the respondents, for the injuries sustained by her in a Motor Vehicle Accident. It was submitted that on 19.12.2004, when the petitioner was walking on the main road at Periyar Nagar, Kariapatti, after giving lunch to her father who was running a workshop there and when she was proceeding from south towards north, the respondent's Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration No.TN-32N-1222, coming from south towards north on the same road and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the petitioner and caused the accident. In the impact, the petitioner sustained fracture of bone in her left leg and swelling and was initially admitted at Madurai Government Hospital and subsequently took treatment at a private hospital. After the accident, the petitioner has not been able to do any work. She is unable to walk to school and also unable to lift her school bag. Hence, the petitioner has claimed a compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondents. 3. The respondent, in his counter has submitted that on 19.12.2004, the driver of the respondent's bus bearing registration No.TN-32N-1222, drove the bus in a careful and cautious manner from Tiruchendur towards Dindigul and that when the bus was nearing Periyar Nagar near Kariyapatti, the petitioner, who was walking on the south west road towards north, had suddenly tried to cross the road towards east, without giving any indication. The driver of the bus, on seeing this, had applied sudden brake and tried to stop the bus, but inspite of this, the petitioner was hit by the body of the bus and fell down. It was submitted that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the petitioner and that the driver of the respondent's bus had not been negligent in his driving. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. It was submitted that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the petitioner and that the driver of the respondent's bus had not been negligent in his driving. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. On the petitioners side, two witnesses were examined as PW.1 and PW.2 and eight documents were marked as exhibits P1 to P8 namely Ex.P1-copy of F.I.R dated 19.12.2004; Ex.P2-copy of charge sheet dated 31.01.2005; Ex.P3-copy of extract of accident register dated 31.01.2005 pertaining to Suganya; Ex.P4-copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report dated 20.12.2004; Ex.P5-Disability certificate dated 30.08.2006 issued to Suganya; Ex.P6-Statement of account dated 30.08.2006; Exs.P7 and P8-x rays. On the respondents side, one witness was examined as RW.1 and no document was marked. 5. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused?; (2) Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation?; If so, what is the quantum of compensation which the petitioner is entitled to get?. 6. PW.1, Selvaraj has adduced evidence that his daughter Suganya was aged 8 years and studying in the 4th standard at the time of accident and that on 19.12.2004, when she was walking on the Kariapatti main road, towards north, in order to deliver lunch to PW.1, the respondent's bus coming from behind in a rash and negligent manner by its driver had dashed against her. He deposed that the said Suganya sustained fracture of bones in her left thigh and that she was initially admitted at Kariapatti Hospital for treatment and later on admitted at Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital, wherein she took treatment for 15 days, He deposed that Suganya is still not able to walk properly. In support of his evidence, he had marked the exhibits listed as P1 to P4. 7. RW.1, the driver of the respondents bus had adduced evidence that on the date of accident, he had started the trip at 10.20 a.m., at Tiruchendur and driven the bus bearing registration No.TN-32N-1222 towards Dindigul and that when he was proceeding on the bus on the Kariapatti road, the petitioner had suddenly crossed the road and on seeing this he had applied sudden brake but however the side body of the bus had hit a glancing blow on the petitioner, who had fallen down. He deposed that the accident was caused only due to the negligence of the petitioner. 8. However, the Tribunal on observing that if the driver of the bus had driven the bus carefully and cautiously and at a moderate speed, he could have stopped the bus on seeing the petitioner crossing the road and could have averted the accident. As this was not the case, the Tribunal held that the accident had been caused only by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondent's bus. 9. On scrutiny of Ex.P3, wound certificate, it is seen that the petitioner had sustained fracture of bone on her left leg and that it is a grievous injury. 10. PW.2, Sampathkumar, who had examined the petitioner had adduced evidence that on 30.08.2006, he had examined the medical records of the petitioner and also taken x rays of her left hip and thigh. He deposed that after examination, he had found that the fractured "Beemer" bone in her thigh, which had been fractured at the joint connecting the upper and middle thigh had joined in an improper manner and that the movements of her joints have become restricted the muscles have lost their elasticity. He deposed that the petitioner had sustained 41% permanent disability and in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P5, disability certificate and Ex.P6 for assessment details regarding computation of disability; Exs.P7 and P8-X rays taken at the time of medical treatment. 11. Hence, the Tribunal, on considering the oral and documentary evidence awarded a sum of Rs.61,500/- as compensation under the head of partial permanent disability of 41%; Rs.1,000/- was awarded towards transport expenses; Rs.5,000/- under the head of pain and suffering and Rs.3,000/-towards nutrition. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.70,500/- as compensation to the petitioner and directed the respondent to deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition, till the date of deposit of compensation within two months from the date of its order. 12. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the respondent/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Division II) Tirunelveli, has preferred the present appeal. 12. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the respondent/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Division II) Tirunelveli, has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the tribunal had wrongly fixed the negligence upon the driver of the appellant and failed to see that the accident took place only due to the negligence of the minor respondent namely Suganya. It was contended that the Tribunal erred in relying on the F.I.R and charge sheet and failed to see that negligence of the bus driver could not be ascertained in a conclusive manner through these documents. It was contended that the tribunal ought to have accepted the evidence of RW.1, who was an eyewitness of the accident. It was also contended that the tribunal erred in accepting the PW.2, Doctor's evidence of RW.1, who was an eyewitness of the accident. It was also contended that the tribunal erred in accepting the PW.2, Doctor's evidence without any basis and awarded a sum of Rs.61,500/- for 41% of part and permanent disability especially as the doctor had not given any treatment at the time of accident. It was contended that the award passed by the Tribunal was excessive and has to be set aside or modified. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the impugned award of the tribunal, this Court does not find any short coming in the findings arrived at for determining the liability and quantum of compensation. Further, this Court opines that the injured claimant is a school going girl aged about 8 years and she had sustained bone fracture injuries in her left thigh. It is seen that the fractured bone had not joined in a proper manner, as per the doctor's evidence. On 22.02.2011, this Court had directed the appellant to deposit entire compensation amount. The claim case has been initiated in the year of 2005. Therefore, this Court permitted the father of the injured person to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.68 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Aruppukottai, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. 14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. 14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.68 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Aruppukottai, is confirmed, dated 01.11.2006. No costs.