JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Chennai – 2, which figured as the sole respondent in M.C.O.P.No.798 of 2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai, against the decree of the said Tribunal dated 30.10.2008 made in the above said MCOP directing payment of a sum of Rs.1,24,000/- together with an interest and cost. 2. Lakshmipathy, the respondent herein had preferred a claim before the above said Motor Accident Claims Tribunal against the appellant transport corporation for compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident, involving the bus bearing Regn. No.TN-01 N-1531 belonging to the appellant transport corporation, that took place on 06.02.2007 at about 16.15 Hrs. on the GST Road at Pallavaram, opposite to Lakshmi Theatre. It was contended by the respondent that while he was driving the van bearing Regn. No.TN-22 U-2498 along the GST Road near Lakshmi Theatre at Pallavaram in the direction of south to north, the above said bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation that came in the opposite direction was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner; that as a result of such rash and negligent driving, the bus ran into the center median and dashed against the van, which was driven by the respondent and that the said accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation. Contending further that the respondent herein/claimant sustained fracture over the right thigh, contusion over the right hand, serious head injuries, lacerated injuries over left hand and multiple injuries all over the body and that the same resulted in permanent disability, the respondent herein/claimant had prayed for an award directing the appellant transport corporation to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation together with interest and cost. 3. The claim petition was resisted by the appellant transport corporation contending that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation; that on the other hand, the respondent herein/claimant, who came in the van in the opposite direction, drove the van at a hectic speed and hit the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation and that thus the accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the van by the respondent herein/claimant. It was also contended by the appellant transport corporation in its counter that, in any event, there was contributory negligence on the part of the respondent herein/claimant. Besides the above said pleadings, the appellant transport corporation also denied the other averments regarding the nature of injuries, the treatment received by the respondent herein and the alleged permanent disability suffered by him. Contending further that, in any event, the respondent herein could not claim more than the amount contemplated under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act as per the 'no fault liability' clause, the appellant transport corporation pleaded for the dismissal of the MCOP with cost. 4. In the trial conducted by the Tribunal, the respondent herein/claimant figured as PW1 and one Dr.Thiagarajan was examined as PW2. Seven documents were marked on his side as Exs.P1 to P7. The appellant transport corporation examined the bus driver as RW1 and no document was marked on its side. 5. The Tribunal, on an appreciation of evidence, rendered a finding that the driver of the bus bearing Regn. No.TN-01 N-1531 belonging to the appellant transport corporation was at fault and it was due to his rash and negligent driving of the said bus, the accident took place. In line with the said finding, the tribunal mulcted the entire liability on the appellant transport corporation to pay compensation to the respondent herein/claimant for the injuries sustained by him and the resultant consequence of such injuries. It assessed the total amount of compensation at Rs.1,24,000/- and directed the appellant transport corporation to pay the said amount together with an interest on the said amount at the rate of 7.5% per annum calculated from the date of numbering of the MCOP till deposit and also cost. The said award came to be passed on 30.10.2008. The correctness and sustainability of the said award is challenged in the present appeal filed by the appellant transport corporation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are: "1. Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing Regn. No.TN-01 N-1531 belonging to the appellant transport Corporation (respondent in the MCOP)? 2. Whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive requiring downward revision?" 7. Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing Regn. No.TN-01 N-1531 belonging to the appellant transport Corporation (respondent in the MCOP)? 2. Whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive requiring downward revision?" 7. Though the respondent was served with notice, respondent has not chosen to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel. The arguments advanced by Mr.M.Deivanandam, learned counsel for the appellant were heard and the materials available on record submitted by the Tribunal for reference in this appeal were also perused. 8. The respondent herein made a claim before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident that took place at Pallavaram on the GST Road involving the bus bearing Regn. No.TN-01 N-1531 belonging to the appellant transport corporation. Such a claim was made under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act based on the contention that the accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the said bus by its driver. Though the appellant transport corporation would have taken a stand in the counter statement that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation and on the other hand, it was the respondent, who drove the van in a rash and negligent manner, caused the accident by dashing it against the bus, that came in the opposite direction, it did not stick on to the stand and in the next paragraph, it has stated that there was contributory negligence on the part of the respondent herein/claimant. From the said averment found in the counter statement, it is obvious that the appellant transport corporation did not deny the fact that an accident took place on 06.02.2007 at 16.15 Hrs. at Pallavaram on the GST Road and in that accident there was a head on collision of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation and the van bearing Regn. No.TN-22 U-2498, of which the respondent herein was the driver. 9. at Pallavaram on the GST Road and in that accident there was a head on collision of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation and the van bearing Regn. No.TN-22 U-2498, of which the respondent herein was the driver. 9. Regarding the manner in which the accident took place, the respondent herein/claimant as PW1, deposed in clear terms that while he was proceeding from south to north on the GST Road in the above said van, the bus bearing Regn. No.TN-01 N-1531 belonging to the appellant transport corporation that came in the opposite direction was driven by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which it ran into the center median and then hit the van that came in the opposite direction. On the other hand, the driver of the bus, who deposed as RW1, admits that while he was driving the bus near Pallavaram Ponds company on its trip from Poonamallee to Tambaram, a car that proceeded in front of the bus was suddenly moved to the right side and that in order to ensure that it did not come into contact with the bus, he swerved the bus towards right and that at that point of time, the van that came in the opposite direction dashed against the bus. The very tenor of his evidence in the chief examination will show that it was he who changed the track of the bus towards right and hit the van that came in the opposite direction. It has also been admitted by him that a case was registered by the police against him in connection with the above said accident. A copy of the first information report registered in Crime No.49/2007 on the file of GST Road Traffic Investigation Wing, Tambaram Police Station, against the driver of the bus, has been produced as Ex.P5. The contents of Ex.P5 corroborates the evidence of PW1. 10. The Tribunal, on proper appreciation of evidence, came to a correct conclusion that the driver of the bus bearing Regn. No.TN-01 N-1531 belonging to the appellant transport corporation was at fault and it was due to his rash and negligent driving of the bus, the accident in question took place. The contents of Ex.P5 corroborates the evidence of PW1. 10. The Tribunal, on proper appreciation of evidence, came to a correct conclusion that the driver of the bus bearing Regn. No.TN-01 N-1531 belonging to the appellant transport corporation was at fault and it was due to his rash and negligent driving of the bus, the accident in question took place. As against the clear proof rendered by the respondent herein/claimant regarding the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, the appellant transport corporation has not substantiated even its claim that there was contributory negligence on the part of the respondent herein/claimant to any extent. The Tribunal's finding that the accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing Regn. No.TN-01 N-1531 belonging to the appellant transport corporation cannot be found fault with and the same deserves to be confirmed. 11. The respondent herein/claimant is admittedly a van driver. Copy of his driving licence has been produced as Ex.P4. Copies of the Accident Register and discharge summaries have been produced as Exs.P1 to P3. From the said documents, it is obvious that he sustained fracture of right femur, for which a surgery was conducted and interlocking was done inserting nails and using guide wire and. From Ex.P3, it is obvious that for the removal of the nails and distal interlocking screws, he was once again admitted and an operation was done. Despite such treatment, the respondent herein/claimant suffered a functional disability and PW2 has assessed the said disability at 45%. Though a qualified Medical Practitioner, who was also a former Professor of a Government Medical College, on examination of the respondent, found him to be with 45% permanent disability, the Tribunal, without assigning any reason, chose to hold that the disability with which the respondent was found would be fixed only at 35% and held that it was a fit case in which lumpsum compensation had to be awarded for the disability at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per 1% of permanent disability. The Tribunal assessed the compensation for permanent disability at Rs.70,000/-. The Tribunal assessed the compensation for permanent disability at Rs.70,000/-. It added a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities, another sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of expectation of life, Rs.16,000/- for loss of earning for four months from the date of accident, Rs.2,000/- for transport expenses, Rs.2,000/- for extra nourishment, Rs.1,000/- for damages caused to the clothes and other personal articles, Rs.2,000/- for medical expenses and Rs.1,000/- for other expenses. Thus the Tribunal arrived at the final figure of Rs.1,24,000/- as the total amount of compensation to which the respondent was entitled and it passed the award directing the appellant transport corporation to pay the said amount with interest and cost as indicated supra. The split up particulars of the amount awarded by the Tribunal are as follows: For loss of earning : Rs. 16,000/- Transportation Expenses : Rs. 2,000/- Extra Nourishment : Rs. 2,000/- Damage to clothing and other articles : Rs.1,000/- Medical Expenses : Rs. 2,000/- Other expenses : Rs. 1,000/- For partial permanent disability : Rs. 70,000/- For Pain and Suffering : Rs. 10,000/- For loss of amenities : Rs. 10,000/- For loss of expectation of life : Rs. 10,000/- Total : Rs.1,24,000/- 12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the said amount awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and exorbitant, liable to be drastically reduced by this court. This court is not in a position to accept the above said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. 13. First of all, even if it is assumed that, in the absence of any proof that the respondent/claimant did not lose his job as a driver, awarding lumpsum compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per 1% of disability shall be proper and the Tribunal's choice of reducing the percentage of disability shall be proper andto 35% from 45% certified by the qualified Medical Officer is to be viewed as erroneous. When the respondent was not referred to any other Medical Officer or to the Medical Board and the Tribunal also did not refer to any recognised Medical Text to decide the correctness of the assessment made by PW2, the assessment of permanent disability made by PW2 should have been accepted to be correct. When the respondent was not referred to any other Medical Officer or to the Medical Board and the Tribunal also did not refer to any recognised Medical Text to decide the correctness of the assessment made by PW2, the assessment of permanent disability made by PW2 should have been accepted to be correct. If the rate adopted by the Tribunal for deciding the lumpsum payment for the permanent disability is applied, the total amount for the permanent disability itself will come to Rs.90,000/- (45 x 2,000). Since lumpsum payment is made on the assumption that there is no proof of loss of income from the job in which he was trained, the same will take into in its account the loss of earning capacity by switching over to other jobs and also the loss of amenities caused due to the disability. 14. Considering the fact that the petitioner had suffered fracture of the right femur, for which he had taken sophisticated treatment and surgery was conducted twice, the amount to be awarded towards compensation for pain and suffering shall have to be increased to Rs.20,000/- from Rs.10,000/-, while disallowing compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life separately at Rs.10,000/- each. So far as the medical expenses are concerned, the respondent herein/claimant has not produced any bill evidencing payment towards medical expenses. However Exs.P1 to P3 show that he was given treatment in a private hospital called Parvathy Ortho Hospital, where surgery was conducted twice. Two spells of treatment as an in patient was given to him. The same could not have been done as a charity. At least a minimum of Rs.20,000/- should have been spent. The Tribunal, showing conservatism awarded only a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards compensation for medical expenses. The same can be increased to Rs.20,000/-. So far as the sum of Rs.1,000/- awarded towards damages caused to the clothes and personal article is concerned, no challenge has been made by the appellant. A sum of Rs.1,000/- awarded towards other expenses without specifying what are the other expenses, is to be disallowed. For extra nourishment, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- alone. It can be increased to Rs.5,000/-. For transportation expenses, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- and the same is not seriously challenged. A sum of Rs.1,000/- awarded towards other expenses without specifying what are the other expenses, is to be disallowed. For extra nourishment, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- alone. It can be increased to Rs.5,000/-. For transportation expenses, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- and the same is not seriously challenged. In addition, the Tribunal has rightly held that the respondent herein, as a driver, would have earned at least a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month and for a period of four months he would have lost his total earning, for which a sum of Rs.16,000/- had to be awarded. If such alterations and adjustments are made, the total amount of compensation to which the respondent herein/claimant is entitled can be arrived at Rs.1,54,000/-, which is more than the amount awarded by the Tribunal. However, the respondent/claimant has not chosen to file an appeal or cross objection. Therefore, there shall be no question of enhancing the compensation. The above said calculation has been made to show that the appellant transport corporation's claim for reduction, is highly unreasonable and cannot be countenanced. 15. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to the conclusion that the challenge made by the appellant transport corporation to the award of the Tribunal on quantum also deserves to be rejected. The Tribunal has awarded only a reasonable interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The same needs no interference. Though this is a fit case, in which the this court can award cost, it is not done, because the respondent/claimant has not chosen to enter appearance to contest the appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal dated 30.10.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.798 of 2007 is confirmed in all respects. There shall be no order as to cost in this appeal. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.