Judgment :- (Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Article 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.1997 passed in M.A.C.T.O.P. No.2234 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Second Court of Small Causes), Chennai.) Common Judgment: Since both the appeals on hand are arising out of a single judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai (in short "the Tribunal"), they are decided by a common judgment. 2. The injured claimant before the Tribunal, aggrieved by the insufficiency of the award passed in MACTOP No.2234 of 1993, has preferred C.M.A. No.766 of 1998 seeking enhancement of compensation and the respondent before the Tribunal, viz., the Transport Corporation, aggrieved by the findings of the Tribunal in the same M.A.C.T.O.P. in respect of negligence and quantum of compensation, has preferred C.M.A. No.869 of 1998. 3. In connection with a vehicular accident that took place on 06.09.1993, the injured claimant filed a Claim Petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. According to him, on the day of accident, at about 4:30 p.m., he was riding his motor-cycle in Anna Salai and when he turned towards right by applying indicator in the 'U' turn opposite to the SPIC Tower, the Transport Corporation bus, coming the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him causing him grievous injuries and hence, the Transport Corporation, as the owner of the bus, is liable to pay the compensation. In support of his claim, he himself was examined as P.W.1 and one Dr. Sai Chandran was examined as P.W.2. In addition, nine exhibits were marked as documentary evidence. 4. On the other hand, the Transport Corporation, by filing its counter, contended that it was only the injured claimant who drove his motor cycle carelessly and invited the accident and there was no 'U' turn in the accident spot as claimed by him. The Transport Corporation further disputed the claimant's averments with regard to his age, occupation and income. On its behalf, the bus driver was the sole witness and no exhibit was marked. 5. The Transport Corporation further disputed the claimant's averments with regard to his age, occupation and income. On its behalf, the bus driver was the sole witness and no exhibit was marked. 5. After analysing the evidence available before it, the Tribunal held that the driver of the bus was responsible for the accident and awarded a sum of Rs.61,650/- as compensation with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit. As already stated above, aggrieved by the insufficiency of the award of the Tribunal, the injured claimant has come on appeal before this Court and the Transport Corporation has challenged the Tribunal's judgment in respect of both negligence and quantum of compensation. 6. The two points which emerge for consideration in this appeal are that (i) on account of whose negligence, the accident occurred and (ii) whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be modified and if so, either upwardly or downwardly. 7. Mr. N.M. Muthurajan, learned counsel for the injured claimant, with regard to the aspect of negligence, would contend that the injured claimant turned right in a place where there was 'U' turn and the counsel for the Transport Corporation cannot simply contend without proving that there was no 'U' turn. On the aspect of compensation, it would be his contention that the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering as against the claim of Rs.35,000/- and a meagre sum of Rs.3,000/- towards loss of income contrary to the claim of Rs.18,000/-. 8. Contending contra, Mr. M. Krishnamoorthy, the counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation would submit that the Tribunal has failed to note that there was no 'U' turn in the accident spot and consequently, erred in fixing negligence on the part of the bus driver and the Tribunal has further gone wrong in itemizing the heads of permanent disability and loss of income separately. 9. Coming to the first aspect of negligence, there is no dispute over the fact that the Transport Corporation bus and the motor-cycle driven by the injured claimant were involved in the accident which took place on 06.09.1993 opposite to SPIC tower. According to P.W.1, the claimant himself, he turned right where there was a 'U' turn and also by applying indicator. According to P.W.1, the claimant himself, he turned right where there was a 'U' turn and also by applying indicator. But, R.W.1, the bus driver had deposed that there was no 'U' turn in the place where the injured claimant turned. One Amaldass who was examined as P.W.2 is the Sub-Inspector, Traffic Investigation Wing. He has deposed that he does not have any idea about the existence of 'U' turn at the accident spot. Admittedly, Ex.P.9, the draft sketch showing the accident spot, does not speak anything about the existence of 'U' turn. 10. In my view, just because there is no mention about the existence of 'U' turn in the draft sketch, it cannot be concluded that there was no 'U' turn at all in the accident spot. This is because, as the name itself implies, the sketch is only a 'draft' one and the purpose of the draft sketch is only to give a rough idea of the accident spot. When such is the case, it cannot be expected that the draft sketch should provide each and every minute description of the accident spot. Thus, the fact that the mere absence of any mention about the existence of 'U' turn in the draft sketch cannot come to the rescue of the Transport Corporation. In other words, in order to effectively defend its case, the onus is on the Transport Corporation to let in some clinching evidence. In the absence of any such thing except the oral deposition of R.W.1, the bus driver, there is no other option except to concur with the finding of the Tribunal that there was a 'U' turn in the accident spot. In view of these findings, I have no hesitation in confirming that the Tribunal is right in fixing negligence on the part of the bus driver. 11. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is seen that the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.61,650/-, the break-up being Rs.40,000/- towards 45% of permanent disability, Rs.15,000/- under the head of pain and suffering, Rs.1,000/- under the head of transport expenses, Rs.1,500/- towards nutritious food, Rs.1,150/- for medical expenses and Rs.3,000/- towards loss of income. 12. Dr. Saichandran who was examined as P.W.2 has deposed that the injured claimant has sustained fractures in his left hand and right hip. 12. Dr. Saichandran who was examined as P.W.2 has deposed that the injured claimant has sustained fractures in his left hand and right hip. He has also given Ex.P.6, Disability Certificate which shows that the claimant has suffered 45% permanent disability. Considering the nature and extent of injuries and the difficulties which the claimant would have faced on account of the same, except the compensation of Rs.3,000/- awarded under the head of loss of income, I am in agreement with the sums awarded under other heads since they are found reasonable and supported by relevant exhibits. 13. As far as compensation under the head of loss of income is concerned, some useful reference could be made to a recent Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2006(4) CTC 433 in the case of Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. vs. Ahmed Thambi & others where it has been clearly held that loss of earning capacity and permanent disability need not be separately itemized. Following the same, I hold that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded any sum under the head of loss of income since it has already awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head of permanent disability. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.61,650/- awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.58,650/- , the reduction being Rs.3,000/- and in this respect alone, the judgment of the Tribunal is interfered with and in other aspects, it remains unaltered. In the light of what has been stated above, the appeal preferred by the Transport Corporation is allowed only to the extent of Rs.3,000/- and the appeal preferred by the injured claimant for enhancement of compensation does not merit any consideration and is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs with regard to both the appeals.