JUDGMENT :- 1. The respondent herein / claimant had filed a claim petition against the appellant herein, stating that on 04.09.2002, at about 3.40 p.m., when he was walking on the Thiruvarur City South Street, the respondent bus had been driven by its driver in a reckless manner and dashed against him. As a result, he had sustained injuries. Hence, the claim petition has been levelled, against the appellant herein and a compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was claimed. 2. The Transport Corporation had filed counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent stated that the Transport Bus had been stopped on the South Street in order to facilitate passengers to alight and at that time, the claimant had come in a drunken mood and dashed himself against the bus. The respondent denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income of claimant and nature of injuries sustained by him. 3. On considering the averments of both the parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: (1) Whether the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent bus? and (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 4. On the side of the claimant, two witnesses were examined and 6 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P6 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R.; Ex.P2-Discharge summary; Ex.P3-Medical bills; Ex.P4-Accident register; Ex.P5-Motor Vehicle Inspector's report; and Ex.P6-Salary certificate. On the side of the respondent, no witness was examined and no document was marked. PW1 had adduced evidence that when he was working at Mariya Marbles and earning Rs.3,600/-per month including batta. On 04.09.2002, at about 3.45 p.m., when he was walking on the South Street, Thiruvarur City, the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-49-0393, drove the bus in a reckless manner and dashed it against him. As a result, he had sustained injuries on his cheek, left leg, right eye brow and forehead. Immediately, he was rushed to the Government Hospital, Thiruvarur, wherein, he had been hospitalized as inpatient from 04.09.2002 to 07.09.2002. In support of his evidence, he had marked the above mentioned documents. PW2, had adduced evidence that the claimant was working under him as Supervisor and he was paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as salary and also paid a daily batta of Rs.20/-. 5. In support of his evidence, he had marked the above mentioned documents. PW2, had adduced evidence that the claimant was working under him as Supervisor and he was paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as salary and also paid a daily batta of Rs.20/-. 5. On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by the claimant, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.55,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 6. Aggrieved by the said award, the above appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation. The highly competent counsel argued that the claimant had sustained simple injuries and he had been admitted at the Government Hospital, as per evidence. In order to prove the nature of injuries and disability, the Doctor was not examined. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-under the head of loss of earning which is on the higher side. Rs.20,000/-awarded under the head of pain and suffering is also on the higher side. 7. The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant had sustained multiple fracture injuries on his forehead, cheek, right eye brow and neck. He underwent treatment as an inpatient at Hospital for one week and subsequently took treatment as outpatient. The compensation amount is not on the higher side. 8. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. This Court is of the view that the F.I.R. had been registered against the driver of the bus and as per evidence of the claimant, he had sustained injuries on his cheek, forehead, right eye brow and neck. Therefore, the quantum of compensation of a sum of Rs.55,000/- which consists of award under disability, pain and suffering, attender charges, transport, nutrition and loss of earning during medical treatment period is found to be appropriate in the instant case. As per Court records, it is seen that the entire compensation amount has been deposited. 9. Therefore, the quantum of compensation of a sum of Rs.55,000/- which consists of award under disability, pain and suffering, attender charges, transport, nutrition and loss of earning during medical treatment period is found to be appropriate in the instant case. As per Court records, it is seen that the entire compensation amount has been deposited. 9. Now, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.53 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Thiruvarur, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order. 10. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.53 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Thiruvarur, dated 19.04.2004, is confirmed. No costs.