Judgment : 1. This appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation challenging the findings both on negligence and quantum. 2. Abitha, aged 45 years, earning Rs.5,000/-per month, through business, met with an accident due to collision between two vehicles, viz., a three wheeler i.e. Auto Tempo bearing Regn. No.TN-23-P-9023, belonging to the second respondent herein (first respondent in M.C.O.P.353 of 2004) and the vehicle belonging to the appellant, viz., bus bearing Regn.No.TN-23-N-0835. The claimant was travelling in the bus belonging to the appellant. She sustained a fracture on her right hand in three parts of the hand. She Claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. 3. It was the contention of the appellant / Corporation that the claimant was guilty of contributory negligence. Relying upon the decisions reported in 1985 ACJ 904, 1985 ACJ 26, 1984 ACJ 707 (Prem Devi Vs. Harbhajan Singh), the Tribunal held that as the drivers of the vehicle are expected to maintain safe distance between two vehicles and as that was not done, the drivers of both the vehicles are liable and the claimant is not guilty of contributory negligence. The oral evidence of witnesses have also been considered and the Tribunal has right come to the conclusion that both the vehicles are equally responsible for the accident. The finding rendered is justified and therefore, the appeal challenging the finding on negligence deserves dismissal. 4. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, under the following break-up details, compensation has been awarded: Heads Amount awarded Medical expenses (based on medical bills) Rs. 13,000/- Pain and Suffering Rs. 4,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 4,000/- Permanent disability Rs. 50,000/- Loss of income Rs. 5,000/- Future loss of earning capacity Rs. 10,000/- 4.1. The appellant has been directed to pay the compensation to the extent of 50% of the liability, i.e, Rs.47,945/- and the second respondent herein had been directed to bear the remaining liability of Rs.47,945/-. 5. Even though Medical expenses are Claimed at Rs.23,890/-which are supported by medical bills, medical expenses has been allowed at Rs.13,000/- only. So far as the disability is concerned, there had been fractures on two places, i.e., above elbow and below elbow. It is the contention of the claimant that, as the fracture has occurred in the right hand, because of the consequent bend in the right hand, the claimant was unable to continue the business (Semiya Preparation). So far as the disability is concerned, there had been fractures on two places, i.e., above elbow and below elbow. It is the contention of the claimant that, as the fracture has occurred in the right hand, because of the consequent bend in the right hand, the claimant was unable to continue the business (Semiya Preparation). This evidence is supported by the evidence of the doctor where disability has been certified as 50% and restriction in movement has been estimated at 60 degree. It goes without saying that the claimant would not have been able to discharge her household activities, for which she has to engage a house-maid to get the house hold activities done for which also she has to spend money 5.1. The above aspects of the matter, though not expressly stated, would remain compensated only by the award of Rs.50,000/-towards loss of earning capacity by the Tribunal. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal under the head permanent disability cannot be said to be on the higher side. 6. The Court is of the view that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is fair and reasonable. Therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has no merits and the same is dismissed. The claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount already deposited by the Tribunal, less the amount already withdrawn, if any. No costs.