Judgment : 1. The appellant / respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2003, made in M.C.O.P.No.492 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Cheyyar at Tiruvannamalai District. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.492 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Cheyyar at Tiruvannamalai District, claiming a compensation of Rs.50,000/-from the respondent for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. 3. It was submitted that on 13.05.1999, at about 02.30 p.m., when the petitioner was travelling as a passenger in the respondent's Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN23 N0888 from Kaamakkoor to Vandavasi and when the bus was travelling in between Ayilavadi Koot Road road and Koviloor Koot Road, the driver of the bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed it in a ditch nearby. As a result, the petitioner had sustained injuries in her teeth, legs, head and all over her body. she was immediately admitted at Government Hospital, Vandavasi and took treatment as an inpatient. Hence, she had filed the claim petition. 4. The respondent Corporation, in their counter statement, had stated that on 13.05.1999, at about 14.00 hours, when the driver of the respondent's Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN23 N0888, was driving it from Arani to Melmaruvattur, in a careful and cautious manner and when the bus was proceeding between Koviloor and Ayilvadi, the driver of the bus on seeing another bus of the respondent coming in the opposite direction, had applied sudden brake in order to avoid collision with the bus and due to this the bus had been dragged on to the mud side of the road and the front tyres of the bus had got enmeshed in the sand and hence the bus was stopped. As such, the petitioner had sustained injuries only due to an act of god and as such the driver of the bus cannot be held to be rash and negligent in his driving. The averments in the claim regarding age and income of the petitioner were not admitted and it was submitted that the claim was excessive. 5. As such, the petitioner had sustained injuries only due to an act of god and as such the driver of the bus cannot be held to be rash and negligent in his driving. The averments in the claim regarding age and income of the petitioner were not admitted and it was submitted that the claim was excessive. 5. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: i. Was the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondent's bus? and ii. Are the respondents liable to pay compensation? If so, what is the quantum? 6. On the petitioner's side, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and two documents were marked as Exs.P1 and P2 namely FIR and wound certificate. On the respondent's side, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked. 7. P.W.1 the petitioner had adduced evidence, which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim regarding manner of accident and in support of her evidence, she had marked Exs.P1 and P2. On scrutiny of Ex.P1, it is seen that FIR had been registered against the driver of the respondent's bus based on the complaint given by one Panchalai at the Vadavanakkampadi Police Station, who had also travelled in the respondent's bus. The evidence of P.W.1 is on similar lines to the statements in Exs.P1 and P2 regarding manner of accident. 8. R.W.1 the driver of the bus had adduced evidence that on 13.05.1999, at about 02.00 p.m., when he was driving the bus from Arani towards Melmaruvattur, in a careful and cautious manner, and when the bus was in between Koviloor and Ayilavadi, he had seen another bus of the respondent's corporation, which was coming in the opposite direction and that in order to avoid collision with it, he had applied sudden brake due to which there was drag on the bus and the front tyres of the bus got enmeshed in the mud on the left side of the road. He deposed that the petitioner had sustained only simple injuries and the accident was caused due to an act of god and that he had not been rash and negligent in driving the bus. 9. He deposed that the petitioner had sustained only simple injuries and the accident was caused due to an act of god and that he had not been rash and negligent in driving the bus. 9. The Tribunal, however, had observed that the respondent had not examined any of the passengers, who had travelled in the bus to prove that the accident had not been caused due to any negligence on the side of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal had also observed that the bus driver had also not mentioned the registration number of the other bus, which had come in the opposite direction and also not mentioned from where it was coming to prove his contention that he had applied brake in order to avoid collision of his bus with the bus coming in the opposite direction. Hence, the Tribunal on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondent's bus and hence held that the respondent is liable to pay compensation. 10. On scrutiny of Ex.P2, it is seen that the petitioner was aged 25 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal, on observing that no documentary evidence had been marked by the petitioner to prove her income, held the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.1,500/- per month. The Tribunal on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence, had awarded a sum of Rs.18,000/-for loss of income during medical treatment and convalescence period, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- for injuries sustained by the petitioner and Rs.2,000/-for other expenses. In total, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the petitioner and directed the respondent Corporation to pay the said sum together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of , with costs, within a period of two months, from the date of it's order. 11. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the respondent Corporation has preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 12. 11. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the respondent Corporation has preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in the appeal that the Tribunal had erred in relying upon Ex.P1 FIR, which was marked through the claimant, without examining the author of the document and also failed to note that no police officer was examined to prove the negligence of the appellant's driver. It is contended further that the Tribunal had failed to consider the evidence of R.W.1, driver of the appellant Corporation bus, on the basis of evidence in record and that the Tribunal ought to have fixed entire or atleast contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. 13. It is contended that the Tribunal had erred in relying upon Ex.P2 wound certificate, which was marked through the claimant without examining the author of the document. It is contended that the Tribunal had failed to note that no Doctor was examined to prove the nature of injuries and treatment taken by the claimant. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant has submitted that the claimant had sustained grievous injuries in the said accident and that this had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus. Hence, a criminal case had been levelled against the driver. The claimant is aged about 28 years and she is a labourer. After the accident, she is unable to do her work as an agriculturist. 15. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels 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. Further, the Tribunal had decided all the issues, which are involved in the accident case, in an appropriate manner. As such, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be confirmed. 16. This Court had already directed the appellant Corporation to deposit the entire compensation amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.492 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Cheyyar at Tiruvannamalai District. As such, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be confirmed. 16. This Court had already directed the appellant Corporation to deposit the entire compensation amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.492 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Cheyyar at Tiruvannamalai District. Now, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.492 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Cheyyar at Tiruvannamalai District, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Order. 17. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and decree dated 11.02.2003, made in M.C.O.P.No.492 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Cheyyar at Tiruvannamalai District, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There is no order as to costs.