The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of reasonable compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, considering factors such as pain and suffering, mental agony, medical bills, and loss of income due to disability.

1. By consent of both parties, the main appeals itself are taken up for final disposal at the time of admission.

2. These appeals are preferred by the Transport Corporation against the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2009 made in M.C.O.P.Nos.45 and 46 of 2007 respectively on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Poonamallee.

3. Since both the appeals arise out of the same accident, the Tribunal has passed the common order in M.C.O.P Nos.45 and 46 of 2007. Therefore, both the appeals are taken up together and disposed of by a common Judgment.

4. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

On 14.01.2005 at about 2.30 p.m., both the injured met with Motor vehicle accident. The claimants/respondents 1 and 2 were travelling in Mahindra Van bearing Reg.No.TN01-A-7088, which was proceeding from Chennai to Malmaruvathur. While the said van was nearing Urapakkam Village, a Government Bus bearing Reg.No.TN72N-07788 belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation, was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the van. Due to the same, both the injured had sustained fractures. Immediately, they were admitted in Aayisha Hospital. In C.M.A.No.3720 of 2011, the claimant claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. In C.M.No.3721 of 2011, the claimant claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The appellant-Transport Corporation resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

"1. On 14.01.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant –Transport Corporation Bus?

2. Whether the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.45 of 2007 is entitled to claim compensation?

3. Whether the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.46 of 2007 is entitled to claim compensation?"

After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus and awarded a sum of Rs.1,22,200/- as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum in C.M.A.No.3720 of 2010. In C.M.A.No.3721 of 2010, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,06,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. The details of the compensation are as follows:

C.M.A.No.3720/2010C.M.A.No.3721/2010

Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/-Rs. 30,000/-

Mental Agony Rs. 20,000/-Rs. 20,000/-

Medical Bills Rs. 29,700/-Rs. 13,500/-

Transport Rs. 1,000/-Rs. 1,000/-

Extra-Nourishment Rs. 1,500/-Rs. 1,500/-Loss of income due to

40% disability Rs. 40,000/-Rs. 40,000/-

-----------------------------------

TotalRs.1,22,200/-Rs.1,06,000/-

-------------------------------------

Aggrieved by that award, the Transport Corporation has filed these appeals.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and vehemently contended that the award passed by the Tribunal in both the cases are excessive, exorbitant and without basis and justification. He contended that in both the cases, when the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, it ought not to have awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards Mental Agony. Further, he stated that the injuries are simple in nature. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has already considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed.

7. Heard the learned counsel and perused the materials available on record. In both the cases, the claimants were examined as PW1 and PW2. PW3 is Dr.Sai Chandran, who examined the claimant. The claimants were marked the Exs.P1 to P7. On behalf of the Transport Corporation, no one was exa