JUDGMENT : The present appeal has been filed by the KSRTC, assailing the judgment and award dated 27.2.2016 passed by the MACT, Mysuru in MVC.No.1102/2012. 2. Though the notice has been served on the respondent, she remained unrepresented. 3. The brief facts are that on 23.4.2012 at about 8.30 p.m., the claimant went to Mandya in KSRTC bus bearing Regn.No.KA-01-F-8452, at that time, the driver of the bus drove the same rashly and negligently with high speed. When it came near Indavalu Village, the bus hit a tractor and thereafter went towards an agricultural field and as a result of the same, the claimant sustained the injuries. Immediately thereafter, she was taken to Government Hospital, Mandya, where she was given first-aid treatment and thereafter she was shifted to St.Johns Hospital, Mandya, then to K.R. Hospital, Mysuru from there to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru. It was the case of the claimant before the Tribunal that she was working as a Conductor and earning a sum of Rs.10,450/- per month. Because of the injuries sustained by her in the accident in question, she is not able to discharge her duties as a Conductor. Hence, she claimed for awarding compensation. 4. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, KSRTC has entered appearance and filed the objections denying the contents of the claim petition. It is contended by KSRTC that the driver, owner and the insurer of the tractor have not been made parties to the claim petition and therefore claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant and hence they prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues : (i) Whether the petitioner proves that she sustained injuries on account of the accident occurred on 23.4.2012 at about 8.30 p.m., near Hinduvalu village on Mysore-Bangalore Road, on account of the rash and negligent riding of the rider of KSRTC Bus bearing Regn.No.KA-01-F-8452? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? (iii) What order? 6. In order to prove her case, the claimant herself got examined as PW.1 and examined the doctor as PW.2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P14. Respondents have not led any evidence. (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? (iii) What order? 6. In order to prove her case, the claimant herself got examined as PW.1 and examined the doctor as PW.2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P14. Respondents have not led any evidence. After hearing the parties to the lis, the Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and award by awarding total compensation of Rs.2,03,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the KSRTC is in appeal before this Court. 7. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant-KSRTC are that as per the wound certificate at Ex.P3 the claimant has sustained three minor injuries and fracture of 2nd and 3rd rib. But the doctor has deposed that the claimant has suffered fracture of 6th, 7th and 8th rib, which itself goes to show that the Tribunal has not applied its mind while awarding compensation. He contended that the claimant is discharging her duties as a Conductor and if the fracture suffered by her is treated conservatively, there may not be any permanent disability. In that light, the compensation awarded under various heads is also on the higher side. He further contended that as she was working as a Conductor even during the period of treatment, she got her salary and there is no question of granting compensation towards loss of income during laid up period. This aspect has been lost sight off by the Tribunal and awarded an amount of Rs.31,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. He further contended that PW.2-Doctor is not a treated doctor and this aspect has also been lost sight off by the Tribunal. Hence, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. On these grounds he prayed for allowing the appeal by reducing the compensation. 8. As could be seen from the evidence of PW.1, she has deposed that she has taken treatment for a period of five days and she has suffered fracture of left rib 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th and she was treated with conservatively. PW.2-Dr.Ramesh M. Thambhat, has stated that the claimant has suffered with Pneumonitis of left heart of 6, 7 and 8 ribs and he has assessed the disability to the extent of 15% to 20%. PW.2-Dr.Ramesh M. Thambhat, has stated that the claimant has suffered with Pneumonitis of left heart of 6, 7 and 8 ribs and he has assessed the disability to the extent of 15% to 20%. But as could be seen from the wound certificate which has been produced at Ex.P3, it would indicate that the claimant has sustained one lacerated wound; pain and tenderness; and abrasion. Ex.P3 also indicates that there is a fracture of left 2nd and 3rd rib. This aspect has not been taken into consideration and Tribunal without going through the evidence on record has awarded the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain, shock and sufferings; Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, happiness and frustration; Rs.20,000/- towards expectation of life; Rs.12,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.20,000/- towards conveyance, attendant charges, food and nourishment; Rs.31,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. 9. Under the normal circumstances, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal would be just and proper. But when once the claimant has produced the wound certificate at Ex.P3, wherein it is mentioned that the claimant has suffered fracture of left 2nd and 3rd rib, the Tribunal without considering the said fact has awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering. The maximum amount for two fractures which the claimant is entitled to is Rs.40,000/-. 10. When the evidence itself clearly goes to show that the fractures are treated with conservatively, then under such circumstances, there is no question of awarding compensation towards loss of amenities to the extent of Rs.20,000/-. Even there is no material to substantiate the fact that she lost her income during the laid up period, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.31,000/- under the said head, without any basis. In that light, the compensation awarded under the said head appears to be not just and proper. 11. In so far as the compensation awarded towards conveyance, attendant charges, food and nourishment to an extent of Rs.20,000/- is on the higher side and it requires to be reduced. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no need to award any compensation under the head of loss of expectancy of life, that too when the claimant has suffered fracture of 2nd and 3rd rib. Hence, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded any compensation towards the said head. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no need to award any compensation under the head of loss of expectancy of life, that too when the claimant has suffered fracture of 2nd and 3rd rib. Hence, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded any compensation towards the said head. 12. As could be seen from the impugned judgment and award, the claimant was admitted as an inpatient for 15 days and there is no evidence to show as to how many days she had taken follow-up treatment. But the Tribunal by presuming that she might have taken follow-up treatment for a period of 90 days and she might applied for leave for 90 days, has awarded an amount of Rs.31,000/- towards loss of income during the laid up period. The same is also not justifiable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the reassessed compensation is as under :- Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/- Medical Expenses Rs.12,000/- Conveyance, Attendant Charges, food and Nourishment Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.62,000/- Thus, in all the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.62,000/- (Rupees sixty two thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 27.2.2016 passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.1102/2012 is modified to the extent as indicated above. Registry is directed to draw the award accordingly. Registry is further directed to transmit the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- to the concerned Tribunal. After disbursement of Rs.62,000/- with interest thereon, the remaining amount shall be refunded to the KSRTC-appellant herein on proper identification and acknowledgement.