JUDGMENT : V.M. VELUMANI, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2008 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 662 of 2005 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, (Fast Track Court-2), Tirunelveli. 2. The appellant/Transport Corporation is the respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 662 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, (Fast Track Court-2), Tirunelveli. The respondent is the claimant and the appellant is the owner of the vehicle. The respondent filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 662 of 2005, claiming a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the accident that occurred on 06.05.2005. By the award, dated 04.01.2008, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 95,000/- (Rupees Ninety Five Thousand only) as compensation. 3. According to the respondent, while she was travelling in an auto bearing Registration No. TN-72E-7701 as passenger near V.K. Puram, the bus, belonging to the appellant bearing Registration No. TN-72N-0662 driven by its driver, in a high speed and rash and negligent manner, dashed against the auto and caused accident. Due to the said impact, the respondent sustained multiple injuries and she was taken to Government Hospital, Ambasamuthram, and thereafter, admitted in the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital and she was taking treatment as Inpatient. Due to the said injuries, she was not able to do her work as she was doing earlier. The First Information Report was registered against the driver of the appellant, stating that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the appellant. Therefore, she filed the claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) as compensation. 4. The appellant filed counter statement and contended that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the auto and at the time of accident, the driver of the auto did not have valid licence. As the accident occurred between the two vehicles, the respondent herein ought to have impleaded the owner of the auto and his insurance company as parties. Therefore, the appellant prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Before the Tribunal, the respondent examined herself as PW-1 and one Doctor Mr. Ramaguru was examined as PW-2 and marked 10 documents as Ex.P1 to P10. Therefore, the appellant prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Before the Tribunal, the respondent examined herself as PW-1 and one Doctor Mr. Ramaguru was examined as PW-2 and marked 10 documents as Ex.P1 to P10. The appellant examined one Beermohammed, who is the driver of the bus as RW-1 and did not mark any documents. 6. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the appellant Corporation and considering the nature of the injuries and treatment taken by the respondent, awarded a sum of Rs. 95,000/- (Rupees Ninety Five Thousand Only) as compensation to the respondent under different heads. 7. Against the said award, the appellant/Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 8. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent and perused all the materials available on record. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal ought to have fixed the entire negligence on the driver of the auto and compensation awarded is excessive. The said contention is untenable. The Tribunal considering the evidence of respondent as PW-1 and Ex.P.1-First Information Report rejected the evidence of RW-1 driver of the appellant. The appellant or his driver did not lodge any complaint against the driver of the auto. The Tribunal considering the evidence on record, fixed the percentage of disability on the respondent at 30% and awarded the compensation. 10. In view of these facts, this Court is inclined to confirm the finding given by the Tribunal that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus, belonging to the appellant. 11. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal taking into consideration the evidence of PW-2, Doctor and Exhibits with regard to the nature of percentage of disability, medical bills produced by the respondent, awarded a just and proper compensation. The compensation awarded in respect of various heads are not excessive. It is only based on the documents produced by respondent. 12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The compensation awarded in respect of various heads are not excessive. It is only based on the documents produced by respondent. 12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 662 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Court, (Fast Track Court- 2), Tirunelveli, less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the award amount to the Personal Savings Bank Account Number of the claimant, after getting her Account Details, within a period of two weeks thereafter. No costs.