Judgment 1. The appellant is the Transport Corporation. The respondent was a driver in the lorry bearing Registration No.TN 69 B 5598. On 30.11.2002, the respondent was driving the lorry on the Tuticor-in-Ettayapuram Road and at about 12.30 noon, the bus bearing Registration No.TN 57 N 1154 of the appellant came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry, which resulted in causing four simple injuries to the respondent. He was treated as in-patient from 30.11.2012 to 08.12.2012. Thereafter, he claimed compensation for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in M.C.O.P. No.91 of 2004. 2. The respondent examined himself as a witness and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. On the side of the appellant, the Conductor was examined and only one document was marked before the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal found that the accident was solely due to the driver of the appellant Corporation. The reliance placed by the appellant of Ex.R1, the judgment in S.T.C.No.858 of 2003, acquitting the driver of the Corporation bus was rejected. The Tribunal accepted the version of the respondent about the accident. 4. The respondent stated that the defence set up by the appellant is that the driver of the appellant Corporation had to involve in the accident due to the sudden crossing of a motorcyclist. But, no such mention is made in Ex.P1, F.I.R. Further, the driver of the appellant Corporation was not examined. In these circumstances, accepting the version of the respondent, the Tribunal has correctly held that the driver of the Corporation was solely responsible for causing the accident. I do not find any infirmity with the same. 5. Taking into account the four simple injuries, the Tribunal awarded compensation as follows: For the 4 simple injuries and the pain and sufferings suffered by the petitioner Rs.20,000/- For the extra nourishment Rs . 2,000/- For the transport to hospital Rs . 500/- For the persons who attended on him during the treatment period Rs . 500/- Total Rs.23,000/- In my view, the said award amount cannot be termed as excessive. Ex.P7 reveals that the respondent was admitted as inpatient from 30.11.2002 to 08.12.2002 and also continued treatment for sometime as per Exs.P8 and P9. 6. In these circumstances, the award amount cannot be termed as excessive. In fact, it is on the lower side. 500/- Total Rs.23,000/- In my view, the said award amount cannot be termed as excessive. Ex.P7 reveals that the respondent was admitted as inpatient from 30.11.2002 to 08.12.2002 and also continued treatment for sometime as per Exs.P8 and P9. 6. In these circumstances, the award amount cannot be termed as excessive. In fact, it is on the lower side. Hence, I am of not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and the appeal deserves to be rejected. 7. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.