JUDGMENT Swamikkannu, J. 1. This appeal is confined to the question of the quantum of compensation to be awarded. It is submitted that the compensation of Rs. 32,000/-, though claimed, was limited to only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by the Tribunal. It is also submitted that there has been shortening of the right leg of the victim-appellant by one inch and there is also a permanent disability, caused, so far as the right thigh-bone is concerned. It is further submitted that the driver of the car, namely the injured victim, having lost the capacity of using his leg, has been found to a certain extent incapable of driving because it is only by the use of the legs he can propel the mechanism in a car by application of the brakes as well as accelerating it or applying the clutches. Under the circumstances, it cannot be held that the argument on behalf of the appellant, by Mr. N.E. Arumugam, is without substance. On the other hand, this Court finds that the Tribunal has given very niggardly sums under the various heads claimed as compensation. 2. So far as the question of rashness and negligence of the driver of the respondent's bus is concerned, it was the driver of the respondent's bus who has been responsible for the occurrence in this case. Though the driver of the bus was acquitted in the criminal case, yet it is not a ground that there had been no negligence on his part. On the other hand, on a careful anxious scrutiny of the evidence on record, this Court finds that it was only due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of the respondent's bus that the occurrence had taken place and therefore, this Court confirms the finding of the Tribunal in this case, because it does not want to embark upon a repetition of the very same reasons offered by the Tribunal for arriving at such a finding. As a matter of fact, the appellant is only concerned with the enhancement of the compensation. 3. The injured-appellant had sustained injuries at the spot. The evidence of the medical officers (P.Ws 5 and 6) is comprehensive as regards the injuries sustained by the victim (P.W. 4). As a matter of fact, the appellant is only concerned with the enhancement of the compensation. 3. The injured-appellant had sustained injuries at the spot. The evidence of the medical officers (P.Ws 5 and 6) is comprehensive as regards the injuries sustained by the victim (P.W. 4). There is also a post-mortem certificate with respect to the death of the person who met with his death in the course of the occurrence as spoken to by P.W. 3. The rough sketch of the scene of occurrence and the other evidence in the case clearly establishes the fact that since there was no mechanical defect in the bus in question, it must be held that it was only due to the rash and negligent driving that the death bad occurred in this case and the appellant had sustained injuries. As a matter of fact, the observation of the Tribunal is that the entries in Exhibit R. 1, the vehicles maintenance register maintained by the respondent Corporation has been so manipulated and there was indulgence in cramping in certain particulars. It will be useful to refer to the said register and the entries made therein at this stage. Exhibit R. 1 contains entries for several dates, namely 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th etc. of September 1977. As a matter of fact, it commences from the date 13-8-1977 and contains entries upto 21-9-1977. The Tribunal has considered the entries. The complaint as on 10-9-1977 is that the axle bolt was loose. The date of accident was 14 9-1977. On that date, the register shows the following defects as entered therein, about the mechanical condition of the bus: Exhibit R. 1 register discloses the above entries as on 14-9-1977 which is the date of the occurrence. This register is maintained for the first section of the daily maintenance register. It is about this register and the entries therein, that the Tribunal has observed in paragraph 9 of its award as follows: I have closely examined the entries in Exhibit R. 1. In the last two columns I find cramped writing and also interpolation. It is just possible that these entries might have been interpolated subsequently when the bus-driver was facing a serious charge Under Section 304-A, IPC. In the last two columns I find cramped writing and also interpolation. It is just possible that these entries might have been interpolated subsequently when the bus-driver was facing a serious charge Under Section 304-A, IPC. The above observation of the Tribunal requires this Court to observe that an enquiry has to be held to find out as to whether an interpolation had at all been made in the register in this case by the authorities concerned. Though it is not germane to the point at issue in this case, yet this Court is of the opinion that when once it has been taken note, of the conduct of the bus-driver not being known he not having been examined, this is a fit case where a departmental enquiry should be held and necessary prosecution launched against those responsible for having made the said interpolations in the register (Exhibit R. 1) and that too, especially when the driver of the bus was facing a serious charge. This Court directs the concerned authorities to take further action in this regard against the persons concerned. Except this, this Court does not want to give any definite finding with reference to the new interpolations which were found in the register, Exhibit R. 1 and observed in the Award under appeal. 4. The Tribunal has carefully considered the evidence with reference to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent's bus by its driver and bas come to the correct conclusion that it was only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus that the occurrence had taken place. The present claim is that the driver of the car, namely P.W. 4, the injured in the case, was involved in the accident and had sustained injuries. The evidence of the medical officers who attended on him is that he had sustained fracture of the right femur and there was an operation made on him for the purpose of inserting a pin and another one for the removal of the pin later and due to this process of pin traction, he has sustained shortening of the right leg by one inch. He was an in-patient in the hospital from 15-9-1977 to 25-11 1977 and this is shown by the case sheet maintained in the hospital (Exhibit P. 2). Further he had sustained injuries on his forehead, upper arm and other parts of the body. He was an in-patient in the hospital from 15-9-1977 to 25-11 1977 and this is shown by the case sheet maintained in the hospital (Exhibit P. 2). Further he had sustained injuries on his forehead, upper arm and other parts of the body. According to P.W. 5, the doctor, P.W. 4 was able to walk only with support at the time of discharge from the hospital and it would have taken him one or two month to be normal after discharge, and during that period he could not have worked and must have suffered pain till he was completely cured According to him, pin-traction is a painful process. Even on the date of his evidence, P.W 6 the doctor, examined P.W. 4 in court and stated that he had a limp and could not walk fast or run. Therefore, the appellant was an in-patient for 2 months and 10 days and has incurred the above permanent disability. It is seen that even on the date of enquiry before the Tribunal, i.e. even after two years after the accident, he had not been completely cured and had been found to be limping. 5. Now, we have to consider the evidence relating to the quantum of compensation that has to be awarded, bearing in mind the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in N.K.V. Brothers (P) Ltd. v. Karumai Ammat (1980) II M.L.J. 33) (S.C.) which is to the following effect: Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the Courts, as has bean observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do rot suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mustic maybes. We are emphasising this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mustic maybes. We are emphasising this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their 'neighbour'. Indeed, the State must seriously consider no fault liability by legislation. A second aspect which pains us is the inadequacy of the compensation or undue parsimony practised by Tribunals We must remember that judicial tribunals are state organs and Article 41 of the Constitution lays the jurisprudential foundation for state relief against accidental disablement of citizens. There is no justification for niggardliness in compensation. A third factor which is harrowing is the enormous delay in disposal of accident cases resulting in compensation even if awarded, being postponed by several years. The States must appoint sufficient number of tribunals and the High Courts should insist upon quick disposals so that the trauma and tragedy already sustained may not be justice. Many States are unjustly indifferent in this regard. 6. The appellant was a driver aged 22 years and is now having a disability in earning because of the shortening of the right leg as well as other ailments which resulted in a permanent disability His monthly income was Rs. 300/-. His employer, P.W. 8, has stated that his monthly salary was Rs. 150/-. In the case sheet maintained in the hospital, it is noted as Rs. 100/-, He has claimed Rs. 10,000/- for loss of earning power. He has suffered a permanent disability as mentioned earlier. Therefore, if a compensation of Rs. 7,500/- is fixed under this head (i e permanent disability), it cannot be said to be excessive. I also fix the compensation for loss of earning power at Rs. 2,000/-. He has claimed Rs. 3,600/- for loss of earning for one year from 15-9-1977. It is clear from the evidence of the doctors and from his own evidence that he could not have engaged himself in any occupation, much less as a driver, during the period. I fix a compensation of Rs. 1,500/-for loss of earning. It is all right that in the instant case the claimant was driving the car all alone. It is clear from the evidence of the doctors and from his own evidence that he could not have engaged himself in any occupation, much less as a driver, during the period. I fix a compensation of Rs. 1,500/-for loss of earning. It is all right that in the instant case the claimant was driving the car all alone. But, what would have happened if the owner himself was travelling, seated in the rear seat, and what if he had also been a victim of the accident? Merely on the ground that only the driver had been injured, it does not mean that the owner of the car, if travelling in the car, would escape with minor injuries. Under the circumstances, a duty is also cast on the part of persons driving heavy vehicles to stop or go slow or use the discretion to see that they avoid any mishap due to rash and negligent driving of heavy vehicles, and more so passenger vehicles. Scanning the entire evidence, it is seen that there is no iota of evidence to substantiate the possibility of any contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car raising its head in the entire mass of evidence in this case. This Court finds that there has been no contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car. Under the circumstances, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- that had been awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of earning power is correct, just and adequate. I also confirm the compensation of Rs. 1,500/- towards loss of earning, as awarded by the Tribunal. 7. The claimant has claimed Rs. 1,000/- for transport to hospital and another Rs. 1,000/- for extra nourishment. These two claims must be allowed. The Tribunal has rejected the claim under these two heads on the ground that there is no evidence. From the way in which the injured had been experiencing pain and suffering till the wounds got completely healed, both as an in-patient as well as subsequently as an out-patient, the said sums have to be awarded, and they are allowed. He has also claimed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for pain and suffering. It is seen from the evidence that the claimant had been actually pinned with metal pins by introducing them by operation. He has also claimed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for pain and suffering. It is seen from the evidence that the claimant had been actually pinned with metal pins by introducing them by operation. He had also another operation for the removal of the pins later and, due to this, he has undergone torture which was entirely due to the accident. Therefore, this painful process undergone by the appellant necessarily requires full and adequate, at the same time justifiable, compensation being awarded. In this view, this Court does not find a claim of Rs. 5,000/- is excessive. The entire claim of Rs. 5,000/- is therefore allowed, whereas the Tribunal has only awarded a sum of Rs. 1,500/- under this head. The claim for medical expenses and legal expenses has been disallowed by the Tribunal and that is correct, because the treatment given in the Government hospital to persons is free of charges. The legal expenses are not borne out by any documentary evidence. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 18,000/- is awarded under the various heads mentioned above, instead of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 8. It is submitted that the appeal has been preferred from the common award which includes also awards relating to other claimants in O.P. Nos. 88 of 1978 and 233 of 1978. In this appeal, we are concerned only with O P. No. 76 of 1978 in which the appellant is Jaya Kumar and the respondent is the Pallavan Transport Corporation. The enhanced sum of Rs 8,000/-(Rupees Eight thousand only) has to be deposited by the respondent within two months from this date It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the respondent had deposited the compensation of Rs. 10,000/-awarded by the Tribunal as and when the award was passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the enhanced compensation amount of Rs. 8,000/- awarded by this Court has to be deposited before the Tribunal by the respondent within two months as indicated above. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.