Judgement ORDER :- This is an appeal filed by the first respondent-minor Rajam, represented by father and guardian Neelakandan, Proprietor, Anandan Bus Service, against the Award passed in C.P. No. 293 of 1979 on 29-1-1981 along with C.P. No. 162 of 1979 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Third Additional Subordinate Judge), Cuddalore, finding that Ramaswamy petitioner/first respondent herein is entitled to recover a compensation ox Rs. 9,000/-. The Tribunal observed that during the period of treatment, the injured would have suffered much pain and suffering and as such a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- is just and adequate. It is also held that the injured due to mal-union of the bone has suffered permanent disability and as such a compensation of Rs. 6,000/- for the same was awarded. Thus, it was held that the first respondent herein was entitled to recover a total compensation of Rs. 9,000/-. 2. The petitioner/first respondent herein (in C. P. No. 293 of 1979), aged about 50 years is an agriculturist in Thondankurichi village earning about Rs. 300/- per month. On 2-6-1978 at about 1.15 p.m., both the first respondent herein as well as the petitioner in C.P. No. 162 of 1979 were travelling in the bus TNF-405 belonging to the appellant herein and insured with the second respondent herein. When it was coming near Uchimedu village in Kallakurichi-Vridhachalam Road, it was driven in a rash and negligent manner and it dashed against a road side tamarind tree as a result of which both of them sustained injuries. The first respondent herein sustained fracture in his right upper arm, internal wound in chest and other injuries on his fingers. Even after treatment in Government Hospital, Kallakurichi and in the headquarters hospital at Cuddalore as an in-patient for 17 days and also in the Jimper Hospital at Pondicherry for about four months, still he is not able to do any work with his right arm and especially agricultural work. Therefore, the first respondent herein claimed a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. 3. The appellant herein in its counter before the Tribunal contended that on a latent mechanical defect, the steering wheel went out of control all of a sudden and could not be controlled by the driver. Thus, the accident had happened not due to rash and negligent driving of the bus, but due to an act of God for which no one can be held liable. Thus, the accident had happened not due to rash and negligent driving of the bus, but due to an act of God for which no one can be held liable. 4. The appellant herein denied the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the first respondent herein in the accident and the permanent disability pleaded by him. The compensation amounts claimed are excessive. 5. The second respondent herein in its counter before the Tribunal contended that when the bus was proceeding in Kallakurichi Vridhachalam Road which is a narrow one, a boy ran across the road and in order to save him the bus had to be swerved to the side of the road. Then accident had happened which is entirely due to an act of God and not due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. 6. The following points were framed by the Tribunal for determination :- "(1) Whether the accident has happened due to rash and negligent driving of the bus TNF 405 ? (2) Whether the delay in filing the petitions may be condoned ? (3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, for how much ? (4) To what relief are the parties entitled ?" 7. The first respondent herein examining himself as P.W. 2 deposed that he is residing in Thondankurichi village. He is an agriculturist owning about one acre of land. He is working as a jelly maistry employing labourers out of which he would get about Rs. 300/- p.m., About two years prior to himself deposing before the Tribunal, one day he got into Anandan Bus Service belonging to the appellant herein at Kallakurichi at about 12.30 p.m. to go to Veppur. When the bus was coming near Uchimedu village at about 1 p.m., very fastly west to east, it turned towards left side and dashed against a tamarind tree on the northern side of the road. He fell down and sustained a fracture below his right shoulder and also other multiple injuries on his chest and fingers. At first he was taken to Kallakurichi hospital where he was given first aid and afterwards treatment in Government Hospital, Cuddalore and again at Gorimedu Hospital. Even after treatment, he is not able to do his work with his right hand. He prayed for a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. At first he was taken to Kallakurichi hospital where he was given first aid and afterwards treatment in Government Hospital, Cuddalore and again at Gorimedu Hospital. Even after treatment, he is not able to do his work with his right hand. He prayed for a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. In his cross-examination he has deposed that he was sitting in the long seat near the front entrance of the bus. When the accident took place, he did not know where the conductor and checker were. It is true that the fractured bones, have united together properly, he is able to do all works and he is deposing now falsely with a view to claim higher compensation. 8. It is common ground that the bus TNF 405 plying between Kallakurichi and Vridhachalam dashed against a road-side tree on the left side near Uchimedu village at about 1.15 p.m., on 2-6-1978 in which the first respondent herein and another sustained injuries. While the first respondent herein contended that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the bus, the appellant herein contended that it had happened due to a latent mechanical defect in the steering rod of the bus, as a result of which it went out of control and dashed against the tree. Thus, we find that the appellant herein admitted the accident, but would plead a latent mechanical defect in the steering rod as a defence for the same. But they have not let in any evidence to substantiate the same. The burden is heavily on the appellant herein to show that the said fact of steering wheel going out of control is not due to rash and negligent driving of the bus, but due to a latent mechanical defect. It is not enough that he had pleaded the same in the statement, but he should have also added that the said latent mechanical defect could not be detected in spite of periodical checking and servicing. But the appellant herein has not pleaded the same. The appellant herein has not also let in any evidence to substantiate the same. So the said plea cannot be accepted and the same was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. 9. Ex. But the appellant herein has not pleaded the same. The appellant herein has not also let in any evidence to substantiate the same. So the said plea cannot be accepted and the same was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. 9. Ex. A-1 certified extract from the first information report shows that it has been given by Kannan, the driver of bus TNF 405 and the relevant portion therein reads as follows :- (Extract being in Tamil language is not reproduced............... Ed.) Thus, it is seen that he has simply stated therein that at the place of accident, the bus dragged to the left side and he applied brake; but did not work and the bus dashed against a tamarind tree on the left side of the road. But he has not stated therein that the bus dragged to the left side due to the steering wheel going out of control. Ex. A-2 certified copy of Motor Vehicles Inspector's report gives a list of damages caused to the bus in Col. 9. But nowhere it has been given there that the steering rod of the bus went out of control. Ex. A-3 certified copy of judgement in C.C. No. 102 of 1979 in the Judicial Second Class Magistrate Court at Ulundurpet shows that the accused driver Kannan had pleaded guilty for offences under Ss.279 and 338 I.P.C., and he had been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-. Thus, taking the entire evidence available before the Court we find that the driver of the vehicle in question had driven the bus with culpable negligence and rashness. The finding of the Tribunal in this regard is correct and the same is confirmed. 10. P.W. 2 the first respondent herein has stated that in the accident he sustained a fracture in his right shoulder bone and other multiple injuries on his chest and thumb. After first aid in Kallakurichi hospital, he took treatment as an in-patient in Cuddalore Hospital for 12 days. After discharge, 5 days later, as he felt painful, he got himself admitted in Government headquarters hospital at Cuddalore again and took treatment for another five days. Even after that, he took treatment in Gorimedu Hospital as an out patient for four months. Even now, he is not able to lift his right hand above the shoulder or do any work with that hand. Even after that, he took treatment in Gorimedu Hospital as an out patient for four months. Even now, he is not able to lift his right hand above the shoulder or do any work with that hand. In his cross examination he would depose that it is not true that the fractured bones have joined completely, he is able to do all works properly at present and his statements to the contrary that he is not able to do any work is false and it is being made by him only with a view to claim higher compensation. Ex. A14 case-sheet shows that the first respondent herein sustained the following injuries in the accident :- 1. A lacerated injury ½" X ¼" X ¼" in the back of left middle finger; 2. A deformity of right arm at the middle and suspicion of fracture shaft humerus. Referred to the Government headquarters hospital, Cuddalore. X-rays disclosed comminuted fracture mid-shaft of right humerus and that he was given treatment in the Government hospital from 2-6-1978 to 13-6-1978 and was discharged. Ex. A-18 shows that he took treatment in Jipmer Hospital from 21-6-1978 to 11-8-1978. Thus, the documents show that he took treatment for a period of 3 months and 9 days i.e., from 2-6-1978 to 11-8-1978. P.W. 3 Dr. Thiagarajan has deposed that he examined P.W. 2 on 4-8-1980 for complaints of pain in his right shoulder and difficulty in movement and the x -ray revealed malunited fracture shaft of right humerus. P.W. 3 is of the opinion that pain and limitation of right shoulder movements are due to malunion of the fractured shaft of right humerus. These complaints are likely to aggravate as the age advances. He estimated the disability at about 30% and Ex. A.22 is the disability certificate given by him. In his cross-examination P.W. 3 had deposed that on the third day of putting of P.O.P. cast, X-ray is usually taken. It would show whether the fractured bones have been set properly or improperly. Usually check X-ray is taken two weeks after P.O.P. cast. Ex. A-14 shows fracture of humerus, manipulation, i.e., setting right of the fractured bones was done to P.W. 2 on 7-6-1978 'U' slab cuff and collar were applied. He saw him for the first time only on 4-8-1980. He had not seen him before. Usually check X-ray is taken two weeks after P.O.P. cast. Ex. A-14 shows fracture of humerus, manipulation, i.e., setting right of the fractured bones was done to P.W. 2 on 7-6-1978 'U' slab cuff and collar were applied. He saw him for the first time only on 4-8-1980. He had not seen him before. He did not also know where he took any treatment earlier. If it is suggested that P.W. 2 was in a proper condition from the date of discharge from the hospital i.e., on 13-6-1978 as to his appearance before him on 14-8-1980 that he did not know. It is not true that he is perfectly normal now and is not suffering from any permanent disability at all. Ex. A-15 and Ex. A-16 show comminuted fracture in the midshaft of right humerus. Ex. A-17 has not disclosed any fracture at all. So the first respondent herein had sustained only one fracture in his right humerus bone. Thus the medical evidence showed that the first respondent herein took treatment in various hospitals from 2-6-1978 to 11-8-1978. During the said period of treatment, he would have suffered much pain and suffering and therefore the compensation of Rs. 3,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under that head is just and reasonable and the same is confirmed. Ex. A-24 shows malunion of right humerus bone, which would certainly cause him permanent disability in using the same. Therefore, the compensation of Rs. 6,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for disability is quite adequate and reasonable and the same is hereby confirmed. Therefore, the award of Rs. 9,000/- passed by the Tribunal with respect to the claim made in C.P. No. 293 of 1979 by the first respondent herein is correct, just and adequate and the same is confirmed. 11. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant herein that the petition preferred by the first respondent herein before the Tribunal does not contain particulars as against the various items of claims contemplated in the form. 11. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant herein that the petition preferred by the first respondent herein before the Tribunal does not contain particulars as against the various items of claims contemplated in the form. In this regard the decision reported in Seethamma v. Benedict D'Sa, AIR 1967 Mys 11 is relied and the following passage which occurs at page 13 runs as follows :- "It appears to me that the form which is prescribed for the presentation of a claim was mechanically filled up by the claimants in the belief that since rashness and negligence and other particulars had already been set out in the notice preceding the presentation of the claim petition, it was not necessary to reiterate those allegations again. To my mind, the language of the form is such as to mislead a claimant in that way. The 22nd column should require the claimant to state the grounds on which the respondents are sought to be made liable for compensation instead of merely asking him to give any other information that may be necessary or helpful in the disposal of the claim. The form prescribed by the Rules is to my mind both inadequate and misleading. It asks the claimant to state many things without requiring him to state the really essential facts supporting the claim. The 22nd column is the only column against which those material facts could be stated, but, that column which speaks of 'any other information that may assist' 'the disposal of the claim', cannot be comprehended as a requisition for facts creating a right to compensation. The language of that column appears to be in the nature of an invitation to state other subsidiary information which the claimant might consider useful to him. So the prescribed form is a poor substitute for a plaint and there can be no rational reason for insistence on a pleading through its columns. A claim for compensation for death or injury which should be supported by a statement and proof of facts which create a right to it, should be allowed to be made through a properly prepared pleading such as a plaint produced before the ordinary Courts, and, not through the obscure columns of an imperfect form such as the one prescribed by the Rules. It is however, necessary to say more about this in this appeal". 12. It is however, necessary to say more about this in this appeal". 12. Rule 3 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1961 reads as follows :- "3. Applications : (1) Every application for payment of compensation made under Section 110-A shall be made in the form appended to these rules and shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed therefor in Rule 20. (2) An appeal under Section 110-D shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed therefor in sub-rule (1-A) of Rule 20". 13. A careful reading of the observations : "22. Where the application is not made within time state the cause thereof : Merely on the ground that the details required in Col. 21-A, parts I and II against each and every subject, such as loss of earnings, partial loss of earnings, etc., were given. It cannot be held that the failure on the part of the first respondent herein to fill up these columns in Col. 21-A in the claim petition disentitle the first respondent herein from claiming compensation under the Act. It is seen that as against Col. 21-A a comprehensive amount of compensation has been claimed. The first respondent herein examined himself as P.W. 1. Nothing has been elicited from him on behalf of the appellant herein as to why he has not chosen to fill up the columns giving details. On the other hand, we find that P.W. 1 has spoken about the various claims made by him amounting to Rs. 10,000/- comprehensively in his chief-examination. It is a well established principle of law that the failure of a person seeking remedy in a court of law should not held as not entitled to get his legal claim on the ground of failure to mention under what provision of law he has piloted the prayer by way of a petition or a suit or any other proceeding. No doubt ignorance of law is no excuse, but that does not mean that each citizen of the great Bharat has to acquaint himself with the relevant provisions. It is for the Court to apply its mind under what provision of law relief can be granted for the prayer that has been made together with the details for such a prayer by the claimant or a citizen seeking relief. It is for the Court to apply its mind under what provision of law relief can be granted for the prayer that has been made together with the details for such a prayer by the claimant or a citizen seeking relief. Bearing this broad principle of law we find that the contention raised in this regard by the learned counsel for the appellant herein cannot be upheld. No other point has been raised on behalf of the appellant herein. The Tribunal in the decision in AIR 1967 Mys 11 as well as R.3 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1961 do not help the appellant herein for upholding his point as tenable. In Column 22 of the claim petition, the first respondent herein has given the following version :- The petitioner was not able to get the address of the owner of the vehicle and the address of the Insurance Company. So there is a delay of 310 days and it is prayed that the delay may be excused. Amended as per order in I.A.........../81, dt. 12-1-81." had applied its mind and had come to the correct conclusion both with respect to the liability as well as the quantum of compensation and the same are confirmed. This Court does not find any ground in the appeal. There is no merit in the appeal. 14. Hence the appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.