Judgment :- 1. In all these four appeals which are filed and heard separately, a common issue which arises for consideration is as regards the liability of the Insurance Company or the owner of the vehicle as regards the claimants who travelled on the foot-board of the passenger vehicle. As there is no definite or binding pronouncement on this issue, I have taken considerable time to consolidate a few cases so that I could hear arguments by different counsel representing both sides. I have also consolidated only such of those cases where the fact of the victim having travelled on the foot-board is admitted on the side of the claimants themselves either in their own evidence or in the First Information Report given by themselves or persons accompanying them and I have eschewed cases where there is any controversy over the said fact and in all these claim petitions, the respondents had also pleaded that the victims had been travelling on the foot-board and they are themselves responsible for the accident. 2. Negligence on the part of the claimants themselves has always been a recognised defence in the law of torts, which is generally termed as contributory negligence. It could be a complete defence where the victim may be alleged to be fully responsible for the accident, and the respondent is completely absolved of his liability. Or it could be due to negligence on the part of both sides which would result in apportionment of the liability depending on the degree of negligence. Some of the English Courts, while applying the common law doctrine of contributory negligence adopted the extreme position of total denial of compensation to the claimant if he was found guilty of contributory negligence. Then as a result of the recommendation of the Law Revision Committee, the Law Reforms (Contributory Negligence) Act, 1945 was passed. Some of the English Courts, while applying the common law doctrine of contributory negligence adopted the extreme position of total denial of compensation to the claimant if he was found guilty of contributory negligence. Then as a result of the recommendation of the Law Revision Committee, the Law Reforms (Contributory Negligence) Act, 1945 was passed. The said Act recognised the right of the claimant to receive proportionate compensation and Section 1(1) of the Act is as: follows: “Where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, a claim in respect of that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering the damage, but the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimants share in the responsibility for the damage” To appreciate the scope of contributory negligence, it is not necessary to indulge in a research of its genesis from Salmonds “Last Opportunity” Rule and the Rule formulated in Davies v. Mann (1840 M & W, 546) or the subsequent judgment of the Court of Appeal in Davies v. Swan Motor Co. (Swansea) Ld. James, Third Party (1949 (2) Kings Bench 291). It is sufficient to refer to the characteristic, simple and apt definition of negligence and contributory negligence by Lord Justice Denning. “Negligence depends on a breach of duty, whereas contributory negligence does not. Negligence is a Mans carelessness in breach of duty to others. Contributory negligence is a Mans carelessness in looking after his own safety. He is guilty of contributory negligence if he ought reasonably to have foreseen that, if he did not act as a reasonable prudent man, he might be hurt himself.” (Vide 1976 I Law Reports, 286 - Froom and others v. Butcher ). The real test is therefore, whether the plaintiff had behaved as a prudent man and whether he had looked after his own safety. The real test is therefore, whether the plaintiff had behaved as a prudent man and whether he had looked after his own safety. When a passenger is prepared to travel on the foot-board of a bus from where he is sure to be thrown off by the usual and violent jerks and vibrations of the speeding bus and by precariously hanging on the widow bars of the bus knowing fully well that he cannot hang on for a long time because of his own body weight and the velocity of the moving bus and also the possibility of being hit by a post or another moving vehicle, can it be said that the passenger was behaving as a prudent man or had minded about his own safety? To my mind, the answer should be in the negative. 3. The oft repeated argument that the driver and the conductor are duty bound to caution such passengers is, to say the least, impracticable and impossible. It is no doubt their duty to prevent such foot-board travelling. But at the same time they cannot be expected to be always looking at the entry and exit and to watch each passenger trying to travel on the foot board. It would be very strange to suggest that the driver should be watching the entry and exit of the bus instead of observing the traffic. He is already performing a magic in driving the heavy vehicle through the zig zag puzzle of the traffic in the cities and roads of our country. The conductor cannot also keep his eyes always riveted on the entry and exit every fraction of a minute instead of issuing tickets and collecting and distributing cash and doing his other duties such as making entries in his Ticket chart etc. There is also the further problem of the crew really not being able to enforce discipline, among the passengers. Any regular passenger of the City buses will know that very often the crew are badly treated. Shouting by the driver and the conductor at the passengers who travel on the foot-board once in few minutes is a regular scene witnessed everyday in all the buses. If really, the crew should refuse to move the vehicle to prevent anyone travelling on the foot-board, then no vehicle can be moved away from any bus stop. Shouting by the driver and the conductor at the passengers who travel on the foot-board once in few minutes is a regular scene witnessed everyday in all the buses. If really, the crew should refuse to move the vehicle to prevent anyone travelling on the foot-board, then no vehicle can be moved away from any bus stop. The only other alternative is to move the bus to nearby Police station and to give a complaint and stop plying the bus. There have been innumerable instances of unruly mob manhandling, beating up the crew if they refuse to permit them to travel as they like, on the foot-board, sometimes even on the top of the bus. The crew dare not open their mouths. All that a Corporation or a Private Bus Company can do is to put up a warning at the entrance of the bus not to stand on the footboard and all the Transport Corporation buses do have such a warning painted. It would be unreasonable and impracticable to expect the crew to keep on watching or warning each and every passenger or to stop the bus every moment they see a passenger on the foot-board. If a passenger chooses to travel on the foot-board he takes the risk of the consequences and he shall not be heard to complain. Loss of life or limb is undoubtedly a tragedy, but a person who will not condescend to mind about his own safety, cannot be permitted to capitalise on his own wrong doing and irresponsible behaviour. It would be equally an injustice to burden and mulct a public Transport Corporation with unjust liability. While there is no doubt that stern action of dismissal from service should be taken against all drivers who are found to have caused accidents by rash and negligent driving, it is equally important that there should also be no pampering of indisciplined passengers by gifting to them huge public money for the consequences of their own improper behaviour. We may not inculcate the strict discipline in Western countries and other Asian countries like Singapore in the matter of all traffic regulations, wearing seat belts, helmets etc. We should at least avoid gifting public money of Insurance Company-and Public Transport Corporations to persons who intentionally violate the warnings and do not mind taking the risk by deliberately travelling in a precarious manner. 4. We should at least avoid gifting public money of Insurance Company-and Public Transport Corporations to persons who intentionally violate the warnings and do not mind taking the risk by deliberately travelling in a precarious manner. 4. Though many decisions were cited before me by both sides, I have not come across any binding decision dealing with foot-board travel. Some decisions rendered by this Court are distinguishable on facts and they mostly deal with cases where accident had occurred while a passenger tries to get into or get down from the bus and not cases of foot-board travel. In contrast, there are cases which have held that a passenger who slips down from the foot-board while trying to get into the bus cannot be considered to be a passenger at all. This extract is taken from Managing Director, Marudhu Pandiyar Transport Corporation, Karaikudi v. Sundaram, (2001) 2 LW 69 , at page 74: 5. In Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Company Ltd. (1951 Law Reports, 601) the Judicial Committee explained the scope of contributory negligence to the effect that where a man is part author of his own injury he cannot call the other party to compensate him in full. In Jones v. Livox Quarries Ld., Same v. Same (1952 (2) Law Reports, 608, the Court of Appeal dealt with a case where the victim chose to stand and travel on the towbar on the rear side of a vehicle and was severely injured when another vehicle following the same crushed against his vehicle and he was injured. It was held that the plaintiff had suffered damage as a result partly of his own fault and proportionate deduction was made towards contributory negligence. “In O Connell. v. Jackson (1972 (1) Law Reports, 270), it was held that the victim who was riding a two wheeler and did not wear helmet was guilty of contributory negligence. 6. In Froom & others v. ’Butcher (1976 (1) Law Reports, 286, the victim who was driving his car did not wear the seat belt and as a result of collision suffered injuries. The Court of Appeal observed that the test was not what was the cause of the accident, but what was the cause of the damage and it was held that the failure to wear the seat belt was the cause of damage and hence the compensation was proportionately reduced 7. The Court of Appeal observed that the test was not what was the cause of the accident, but what was the cause of the damage and it was held that the failure to wear the seat belt was the cause of damage and hence the compensation was proportionately reduced 7. In Capps v. Miller (1989 (2) All-England Law Reports, 333) also, the Court of Appeal dealt with a case of failure of the victim to fasten the strap of his crash ‘helmet in a proper manner, It was held that contributory negligence was established. 8. I would deal with the following judgments of the Indian Courts in chronological order: — In Sushma Mitra v. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation (1974 A.C.J. 87), a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held-that drivers of buses should contemplate passengers sitting on the window side resting their arm on the window-sill whenever they overtake or cross another vehicle. It was also held that it was a common practice among the passengers. With due respect such expectations that the driver should observe such conduct on the part of the passenger and such conduct on the part of the passengers should be taken for granted etc., are to my mind, unreasonable and impracticable. 9. In contrast, a Division Bench of our High Court dealt with a case of a passenger gripping the window bar in Mrs. Sydney Victor v. Janab Kader Sheriff (1974 A.C.J. 318 = 87 L.W. 365). On the facts of the case, it was not only the passenger who was hurt-but there was a collision between two vehicles. In those circumstances, the Division Bench held that the passenger gripping the window bar alone was not cause for the damage and hence the passenger was entitled to compensation. 10. The judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in A.A.O. No. 558 of 1979 dated 28.7.1981 (Damodaran v. Santhanam & ors.), dealt with a case of the victim/passenger who was getting into the bus and was injured in the process. The Division Bench disagreed with the view taken by the Tribunal that the victim was not a passenger of the bus. The judgment does not deal with a case of foot-board travel and hence not applicable. The Division Bench disagreed with the view taken by the Tribunal that the victim was not a passenger of the bus. The judgment does not deal with a case of foot-board travel and hence not applicable. In Rural Transport Service v. Bezlum Bibi (A.I.R. 1980 Calcutta 165), by evidence it was established that the conductor of the bus had invited passengers to travel on the roof of the bus. But even so, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court found that the victim was also guilty of contributory negligence and apportioned the amount of compensation. 11. In Pallavan Transport Corporation v. Gowri & others (1981 (II) M.L.J. 181 = 94 L.W. 831) a Division Bench of this Court dealt with a case of foot-board passenger being hit by a telephone post. On the facts of the case, the Division Bench observed (Paragraph No. 7) that the admitted facts would disclose that the accident had not taken place only because of the passenger standing on the foot-board. Therefore, the facts of the case are not relevant for our purpose. 12. Southern Motors, Madurai v. Sivajothi Ammal & ors. ( 1982 (I) M.L.J. 440 = 95 L.W. 232) is also a case where the victim sustained injury while he was trying to give way to passengers who were going down from the bus and when he tried to get into the bus, the bus was move and he was injured. It was therefore, held that the deceased was not a passenger at the time of the accident. 13. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Akatai Tataba Hankare (1982 (2) A.C.J. 284), a learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court held that the deceased was a standing passenger and hence the bus Company had a duty to carry him safely. I have already expressed my inability to accept such a view with due respect. It is no doubt true that the crew have a duty to cany passengers safely, but that does not absolve the duty of the passenger also to behave properly and look after his own safety. 14. In A.A.O.381 of 1982 (M.C. Kandapillai v. Pallavan Transport Corporation ) dated 7.9.1987, a learned single Judge of this Court held that foot-board travel was prohibited and therefore, the victim who travelled on the foot-board was himself responsible for the accident. 15. 14. In A.A.O.381 of 1982 (M.C. Kandapillai v. Pallavan Transport Corporation ) dated 7.9.1987, a learned single Judge of this Court held that foot-board travel was prohibited and therefore, the victim who travelled on the foot-board was himself responsible for the accident. 15. In Venkataswami Motor Service v. C.K. Chinnaswamy (1989 (1) A.C.J. 371), the facts of the case relate to a passenger who was alighting from the front exit of the bus. Hence, the said judgment is not relevant for the issue on hand. 16. In Ram Autar Suresh Kumar v. Kanta Devi (1989 A.C.J. 814), a passenger standing at the front entrance stairs fell down and was crushed as a result of the driver stopping the bus and restarting the bus. A learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court held that the defence of the driver that the passenger jumped out of the bus was not established in evidence. In National Insurance Company Limited, Tiruchirappalli v. V.K. Sundaravalli (1989 T.N.L.J. 31) the question arose as to whether a passenger who was getting into the bus was a passenger or not in order to decide the limited liability, of the Insurance Company and the learned single. Judge of this Court held that such a person cannot be treated to be a passenger. 17. In Sivakumar Transports v. Mani (1990. A.C.J. 836) Ratnam, J. as he then was, had to deal with a passenger who attempted to board the bus through the front exit door and when he placed one foot on the footboard he fell down and sustained injuries. It was held that the passenger was liable for contributory negligence. 18. In Mg. Dir. Thanthai Periyar Transport Corpn. Ltd., Villupuram v. N. Hussain Mohideen ( 1992 (2) L.W. 533 ) the same learned Judge had to deal with a case where the bus moved before all the passengers could alight from the bus and it was held that the driver was negligent. M. Jaganathan, M. v. Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. etc. ( 1997 (1) L.W. 226 ) is also a case of passenger getting down from the bus from the entrance and the Division Bench held that the conductor and the driver had the duty to verify whether a passenger was getting down or not. Therefore, it is not a case of foot-board travel. 19. In United India Insurance Co. ( 1997 (1) L.W. 226 ) is also a case of passenger getting down from the bus from the entrance and the Division Bench held that the conductor and the driver had the duty to verify whether a passenger was getting down or not. Therefore, it is not a case of foot-board travel. 19. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S.A. Zylopthin and 2 others ( 1997 (1) L.W. 369 , a passenger who was keeping his right hand on the window was injured. But on facts, it was found that the bus itself was hit and damaged by another oncoming vehicle. Therefore, it was held that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the driver. 20. The only judgment of the Supreme Court which was referred to was the judgment in Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulaben Jayantilal Nakum and others (1997 A.C.J. 721) is not a case of foot-board travel. In that case the question of liability of the Municipal Corporation and the duty of care to maintain the trees on the roadside and the public places arose for consideration. A tree fell on a pedestrian resulting in his death in a still weather condition. While considering whether the Corporation was negligent in maintaining the trees, it was held that the causation was too remote and it was difficult to foresee that the tree would fall on the deceased. Therefore, the facts of the particular case do not have any relevance to the present case. 21. Among all the judgments dealt with above only one judgment deals with a direct case of foot-board travel namely, 1981 (II) M.L.J. 181 supra which I have already pointed out is distinguishable on facts and the Division Bench itself had held that the evidence clearly established that the accident did not occur as a result of the passenger travelling on the foot-board. Even otherwise, as a result of the enactment of Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as dealt with below, the said judgment cannot hold the field. 22. Apart from my view on the question of common law doctrine of contributory negligence that a foot-board traveller would be liable for contributory negligence, it is also interesting to note that statutory change effected in the present Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, makes it positively illegal for a passenger to travel on a running board. 22. Apart from my view on the question of common law doctrine of contributory negligence that a foot-board traveller would be liable for contributory negligence, it is also interesting to note that statutory change effected in the present Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, makes it positively illegal for a passenger to travel on a running board. Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, was as follows: — “82. Riding on running board: No person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle shall carry any person or permit any, person to be carried on the running board or otherwise than within the body of the vehicle.” 23. A plain reading of Section would make it clear that the driver or conductor is duty bound to prevent a person travelling on the running board or otherwise than within the body of the vehicle. It is therefore, imperative that such travelling is not permitted and is an offence. The language thus used is clearly prohibitive and mandatory and therefore, is equally binding and enforceable against the passenger. It would be anomalous to contend that the provision visualises only a duty on the conductor or the driver but not against a passenger. For instance, Section 144 Cr.P.C. empowers the competent Magistrate in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehending danger to issue an order against any individual or general public to restrain from doing any act which is likely to endanger human life, health, safety etc. Section 144 Cr.P.C. does not mention about or spell out any corresponding duty or obligation on the part of such person or persons against whom the order is issued. It would be meaningless to contend that the Section deals only with the duty or the power of the authority to issue such an order, but there is no corresponding duty on the citizen to obey the order. Therefore, Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 itself implies a corresponding duty on the passenger not to travel in the manner as stated therein. 24. The Legislature while framing the corresponding provision under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 had more carefully included a sub clause under Section 123 which is as follows: — “123. Therefore, Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 itself implies a corresponding duty on the passenger not to travel in the manner as stated therein. 24. The Legislature while framing the corresponding provision under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 had more carefully included a sub clause under Section 123 which is as follows: — “123. Riding on running board, etc.: (1) No person driving or in charge of a Motor Vehicle shall carry any person or permit any person to be carried on the running board or otherwise than within the body of the vehicle. (2) No person shall travel on the running board or on the top or on the bonnet of a motor vehicle.” 25. Therefore, whatever might have been the views of the various courts on their respective interpretation of the common law principle of contributory negligence, in the context of foot-board travel, now after the enactment of Section 123(2) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, foot-board travel is prohibited statutorily even as against a passenger and therefore, the responsibility for’ the accident has to be fixed on the claimant also and hence the victim of the accident is undoubtedly liable for contributory negligence. Any attempt to distinguish between the expression “running board” from “foot-board” would be futile and meaningless. A foot-board is not a place for a passenger either to sit down or to stand while travelling. It is only a facility to enter into the bus or within the body of the vehicle. The foot-board cannot also be construed as a place within the body of the vehicle-. 26. One of the learned counsel appearing for the claimants advanced an argument by referring to Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The said Rule deals with the conductors duties towards passengers. According to the learned counsel, none of the duties mentioned thereunder relate to foot-board, travelling and that Rule 79 (ii) enjoins upon the conductor not to refuse to carry any person tendering the legal fare. The argument completely overlooks the specific provision under the Act itself namely Section 123(1) and (2). Learned counsel had also chosen to ignore Rule 228 which specifies how a passenger should conduct himself in a public service vehicle. Sub-rule (i) prohibits disorderly behaviour of the passenger and Sub-Rule (xi) refers to the commission or abatement of any offence under the Act. Learned counsel had also chosen to ignore Rule 228 which specifies how a passenger should conduct himself in a public service vehicle. Sub-rule (i) prohibits disorderly behaviour of the passenger and Sub-Rule (xi) refers to the commission or abatement of any offence under the Act. In this context, the offence would be referable to Section 123 of the Act which is made punishable under Chapter XIII of the Act. 27. As regards the percentage of liability for contributory negligence, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case namely, whether the bus was overcrowded or not and whether there is evidence of the crew having warned the foot-board passengers or not, I am inclined to feel that it would be reasonable to fix proportionate deduction ranging from 25 percent to 50 per cent of the total compensation. It is also necessary to make the travelling public be aware that foot-board travelling would disentitle them from claiming full compensation. Owners of the Transport Corporations and private passengers bus would be well advised to duly paint the appropriate warning on the entry and the exit of the bus and have it printed on the tickets so that sizeable amount of public money spent towards accident compensation could be saved 28. Now I would deal with each appeal on the respective merits of the case. 29. C.M.A. No. 1354 of 1993: — This appeal relates to M.C.O.P. No. 30 of 1988 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Devakottai. The Claim Petition had been filed with reference to an accident which took place on 15.1.1988 at about 12.15 p.m. on Ramanathapuram Manamelkudi Road. The State Transport Corporation is the appellant in the above appeal. A sum of Rs. 85,000/-was awarded as compensation. There is overwhelming evidence to show that the claimant who was injured was travelling on the foot-board. The driver of the bus had also been examined himself as a witness and he has positively stated that the claimant was travelling on the foot-board. It is further stated that he warned him from doing so and directed him to get into the bus. 30. On a consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had resulted only as a result of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Hence, the present appeal. 31. It is further stated that he warned him from doing so and directed him to get into the bus. 30. On a consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had resulted only as a result of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Hence, the present appeal. 31. Having regard to the evidence already stated and admitted in evidence on the side of the claimant himself the accident had occurred only as a result of the claimant himself having travelled on the foot-board. 32. As against the disability certified at 70 per cent. The Tribunal adopted an erroneous method of calculation. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant was earning Rs. 900/- per month. On his finding that the claimant has been deprived of his earning capacity and on his calculation of an average monthly earning at Rs. 210/-, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 34 and arrived at a total sum of Rs. 84.000/-. The entire method of calculation adopted by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 33. There is however, evidence to show that as a result of the accident, it has been established that the claimant cannot walk normally. With the result, bearing in mind that the claimant had suffered 10 per cent of the disability the following calculation would reflect just and fair compensation: (1) Towards disability Rs. 70,000/- (2) Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 20,000/- (3) Towards medical expenses Rs. 10,000- (4) Loss of income during the period of treatment Rs. 5,000/- (5) Special damages considering that the claimant cannot walk normally. Rs. 10,000/-Total Rs. 1,15,000/- By deducting a sum of Rs. 35,000/- towards contributory negligence, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 80,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of Claim Petition. 34. Subject to the above observation, this appeal is partly allowed. 35. C.M.A. No. 321 of 1991 : — This appeal relates to M.C.O.P. No. 709 of 1991 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madurai. According to the-claimants the accident took place in Madurai Alagar Kovil Road near Kodikullam on 1.3.1991 at about 6.45 p.m. He was travelling in the bus belonging to the appellant Corporation. The said bus was overloaded and was driven rashly and negligently. According to the-claimants the accident took place in Madurai Alagar Kovil Road near Kodikullam on 1.3.1991 at about 6.45 p.m. He was travelling in the bus belonging to the appellant Corporation. The said bus was overloaded and was driven rashly and negligently. It was being driven in an uncontrollable speed and as a result of the bus dashing against a lamp post, the claimant sustained grievous injury. A sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- was prayed for as compensation. 36. In the counter statement by the Transport Corporation, it was specifically pleaded that the claimant was travelling on the foot-board of the bus. The evidence also clearly establishes that the claimant was travelling on the footboard. He was hit against the electrical, post only because of his own conduct. The claimant himself as P.W.1 has admitted the fact that he was travelling on the foot-board. 37. In this case also the Tribunal had adopted an erroneous method of calculation and arrived at a total sum of Rs. 1,06,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal awarded the following amounts: — (1) Towards medical expenses Rs. 30,000- (2) Towards loss of future income Rs. 36,000/- (3) Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 15,000/- (4) Disability caused by fixing artificial joint Rs. 25,000/-Total Rs. 1,06, 000/- The Tribunal even after awarding specific sum under the head of disability however, went further to award Rs. 36,000/- for future loss of income on a calculation that the claimant would have lost Rs. 1,800/- per year, and by adopting a multiplier of 20. Therefore, the above calculations cannot be upheld and I am inclined to hold that the following calculation would reflect just and fair compensation: — (1) Towards Medical Expenses and nutrition Rs. 13,000/- (2) Towards pain & suffering Rs. 25.000/- (3) Towards disability (50 %) Rs. 50,000/- (4) Special damages arising out of fixation of artificial joint and the consequential disability Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 1.35,000/- Out of the said amount I am inclined to deduct a sum of Rs. 35,000/- towards contributory negligence. In the result, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-as compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date-of claim petition. 38. Subject to the above observations, the above appeal is partly allowed. 39. C.M.A. No. 332 of 1994 : — This appeal is directed against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madurai, in M.C.O.P. No. 232 of 1991. 1,00,000/-as compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date-of claim petition. 38. Subject to the above observations, the above appeal is partly allowed. 39. C.M.A. No. 332 of 1994 : — This appeal is directed against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madurai, in M.C.O.P. No. 232 of 1991. The State Transport Corporation is the appellant in the above appeal. 40. The Claim Petition relates to an accident which took place on 16.3.1990 at about 2.25 p.m., while the claimant was travelling in the bus belonging to the appellant Corporation bearing registration No. TMS. 6978. The bus was plying near Thiruparankunram road. According to the claimant, he was travelling on the foot-board and as a result of the careless and negligent diving of the driver of the bus, the claimant had suffered permanent disability for which he claimed a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation. 41. In the counter filed by the appellant Corporation, it was contended that the claimant was travelling on the foot-board notwithstanding repeated warnings by the conductor directing him not to travel on the foot-board. 42. Therefore, on the very admitted pleadings in the Claim Petition as well as the evidence of the claimant himself, it is clearly established that the injured was travelling, on the foot-board of the bus. 43. The injured sustained injuries on his right hand and the disability has been certified at 32 per cent. It is also in evidence that the fracture had not joined properly and the bones were twisted and deformed. The Doctor who treated the claimant, has been examined as R.W.1. In this case, the Tribunal had awarded the following amounts: — (1) Towards disability (20 per cent) Rs. 20,000/- (2) Transport and Nutrition Rs. 4,000/- (3) Loss of earning capacity Rs. 30,000/- (4) For pain and. sufferings Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 64,000/- In this case also, the calculation adopted by the Tribunal cannot be held to be correct. As against the certified disability at 32 percent, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. Having awarded specific sum towards disability, a further award of Rs. 30,000/- towards future income was also not warranted. Therefore, I am inclined to hold, that the following calculation would reflect just and fair compensation. As against the certified disability at 32 percent, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. Having awarded specific sum towards disability, a further award of Rs. 30,000/- towards future income was also not warranted. Therefore, I am inclined to hold, that the following calculation would reflect just and fair compensation. Considering that the fractured bone had not joined properly and it had restricted in the movement of the right hand of the claimant, I am inclined to hold that the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/towards special damages. (1) Towards disability Rs. 32,000/- (2) Transport & Nutrition Rs. 5,000/- (3) Pain and sufferings Rs. 20,000/- (4) Special damages Rs. 5,000/-Total Rs. 82,000/- 44. I am inclined to deduct a sum of Rs. 22,000/- towards contributory negligence. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 60,000/- with 12 per cent per annum from the date of Claim Petition. 45. In the result, the appeal is allowed partly in the above terms. 46. C.M.A. No. 735 of 1994 : — This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Devakottai, in M.C.O.P. No. 8 of 1982. The State Transport Corporation is the appellant in the above appeal. 47. The Claim Petition relates to an accident which took place on 5.5.1991 when the claimant was travelling in the bus belonging to the appellant Corporation, bearing registration No. TML 2027. She was standing while the bus was proceeding at about 8.30 a.m. while it was crossing Thenaaru bridge. The bus left Silaiyankudiyiruppu at 8.30 p.m. and proceeded towards Devakottai. As a result of the driver losing the control of the bus and having driven the bus in a zig zag manner, the claimant was thrown off from the bus and sustained grievous injuries. The claimant was an unmarried girl and was studying IX Standard in a School at Shanmuganathapuram. As a result of the accident, she became unconscious continuously for a week. She also attended E.N.T. Ward as per the advise of the Doctor at Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, and was also subsequently treated in a private clinic at Devakottai. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was claimed as compensation. 48. As a result of the accident, she became unconscious continuously for a week. She also attended E.N.T. Ward as per the advise of the Doctor at Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, and was also subsequently treated in a private clinic at Devakottai. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was claimed as compensation. 48. In the counter filed by the respondent/Transport Corporation; it was contended that, the vehicle was being driven very carefully and cautiously, the claimant was travelling on the rear foot-board and in spite of being warned by the conductor repeatedly, the claimant continued to travel on the foot-board. 49. The Tribunal found that the accident had occurred only as a result of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. A sum of Rs. 40,000/- was awarded as compensation. In the present case also, it is clearly established by evidence that the claimant was travelling on the foot-board and had sustained injuries only as a result of losing her balance. 50. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards disability and a sum of Rs. 15,000/-towards pain and sufferings. Considering mat the disability has been certified at 45 per cent, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards disability being Rs. 25,000/- is on the lesser side and does not reflect proper compensation. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that the following calculation would reflect just and fair compensation (1) Towards disability Rs. 45,000/- (2) Pain and sufferings Rs. 15,000/-Total Rs. 60.000/- I am inclined to deduct a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards contributory negligence and hence the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards compensation. 51. It is however noted that the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum which cannot be sustained considering that the appellant is a Public Transport Corporation. 52. In the result, this appeal is ordered accordingly by fixing the compensation at Rs. 45,001 with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date claim petition. 53. All the above four appeals are ordered accordingly. No costs.