Judgment : S. Manikumar, J. The appellant-Transport Corporation has preferred this Appeal aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, dated 28.04.2000 in M.C.O.P. No.523 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 2. The claimant in M.C.O.P. No.523 of 1936 is the husband of the claimant in M.C.O.P. No.603 of 1996. On 010. 1995, when the respondent herein was riding his motor-cycle with his wife Zarina, as pillion rider on Anna flyover, a bus owned by the appellant-Transport Corporation, driven rashly and negligently by its driver, hit the motor-cyclist and he sustained fracture of right leg and his wife sustained fracture in both hands. The respondent/ claimant also sustained multiple injuries. The respondant/claimant contended that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and claimed compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-. 3. The appellant-Transport Corpora-tion, resisted the claim, contending inter alia that, on the date of accident, when the bus was moving on Anna Flyover slowly, the motorcyclist who came on the right side of the bus, suddenly crossed the road, lost his balance and fell down along with the pillion rider and sustained injuries. On seeing this, to avoid an accident, the driver turned the bus towards the left sides of the road and applied sudden brake. The Transport Corporation contended that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor-cyclist. Therefore, the motorcyclist has contribu-ted to the accident and that the Transport Corporation is not liable to pay com-pensation. They also disputed the age, occupation, income, nature of injuries, period of treatment of the claimant. 4. Before the Tribunal, the respondent/ claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and his wife was examined as P.W.2. The Claim Petitions filed by the husband and wife were taken up together, common evidence was let in by the claimants therein and the Transport Corporation. The Doctor, who has issued the Disability Certificate was examined as P.W.3. P.W.4 is the Senior Section Engineer, I.C.F. Exes. P1 to P39 were marked on the side of the respondent/claimant. On the side of the Transport Corporation, the Conductor was examined as R.W.1 and the Driver was examined as R.W. 2. No documents were marked on their behalf. 5. The Doctor, who has issued the Disability Certificate was examined as P.W.3. P.W.4 is the Senior Section Engineer, I.C.F. Exes. P1 to P39 were marked on the side of the respondent/claimant. On the side of the Transport Corporation, the Conductor was examined as R.W.1 and the Driver was examined as R.W. 2. No documents were marked on their behalf. 5. The Tribunal on evaluation of pleadings and evidence found that the driver of the bus was responsible for the accident and held that the Transport Corporation is liable to pay compensation of Rs.4,64,001/ - to the claimant harein. Heard both sides. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Transport Corporation submitted that when the bus was moving in a normal speed on Anna Flyover, the respondent/ claimant suddenly crossed to the right side of the road without any signal, lost his balance and he fell down. He contended that the Tribunal ought not to have relied on the evidence of P.Ws.l and 2, in the absence of any independent eyewitness. He further contended that even the sketch was not marked to prove that the accident occurred in the manner as set out in the petition. Learned Counsel further contended that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligence of the motorcyclist, while crossing the road and therefore, the respondent/claimant has contributed to the accident. 7. The respondent/claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and. reiterated the averments made in the Claim Petition. The suggestion to P.W.l, respondent/ claimant, that all of a sudden, he had crossed the road and that only due to his negligence the accident had occurred was specifically denied. Though R.W. 1-Conductor and R.W.2-Driver of the bus have deposed that the scooterist suddenly crossed to the right side of the road, their evidence is not supported by any independent witness. It is expected that vehicles plying on a flyover should observe traffic rules and maintain discipline. There is no reason for the claimant to suddenly cross to the right side of the road and that too when a heavy vehicle is coming in the opposite direction. Evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 that the scooterist suddenly crossed to the right side of the road is unbelievable. There is preponderance of probability that the accident would have occurred only in the manner set out in the Claim Petition. Evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 that the scooterist suddenly crossed to the right side of the road is unbelievable. There is preponderance of probability that the accident would have occurred only in the manner set out in the Claim Petition. The evidence of the respondent/claimant is acceptable to hold that the driver of the bus was responsible for the accident. The finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence cannot be termed as perverse and therefore, it is confirmed. 8. The next contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has erred in relying on Exs.P11 to P20, while determining the income of the respondent/claimant. It failed to note that there is no possibility for the respondent/claimant to participate in any tournament and earn extra income. Learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that the assessment of 65% disability on the basis of Ex. P33-Disability Certificate is contrary to the evidence of P.W.1, who has deposed during his cross-examination, that he had been attending office after the treatment. 9. Immediately after the accident, the respondent/claimant was admitted, and treated as inpatient in Vijaya Hospital from 010. 1995 to 22.04.1996. Surgeries were performed on 10. 1995 and on 110. 1995. Rings were fitted in his right leg on 23.03.1996. Ex. P1-Discharge Summary shows that the respondent/ claimant was also treated in MIOT Hospitals, Chennai and the following injuries were diagnosed: “Compound Grade III fracture dislocation right ankle. Entire degloving injury with multiple fracture ribs with Acromio clavicular dislocation right shoulder” The respondent/claimant was dis-charged on 22.04.1996 and was instructed to come for review on every Wednesday. A certificate was given by the Doctor, stating that he was admitted in the Accident Emergency Services of the MIOT Hospitals on 0.10. 1995 with Compound Grade III fracture dislocation right ankle with entire degloving injury with multiple fracture in ribs. Ex.P2, Discharge Summary issued by MIOT Hospital proves that the respondent/clai-mant was admitted in the same hospital on 03.04.1997 and was discharged on 14.04.1997. Another surgery was per-formed on 05.04.1997 for fixation of rings and bone grafting was also done. He was advised to take treatment everyday in the MIOT out-patient centre. It is evident from Ex.P.4 that, the respondent/claimant was on Leave on Loss of Pay from 10. 1995 to 11.05.1996, 12.05.1956 to 30.01.1997 and from 03.04.1997 to 30.01.1999, for a period of 782 days. He was advised to take treatment everyday in the MIOT out-patient centre. It is evident from Ex.P.4 that, the respondent/claimant was on Leave on Loss of Pay from 10. 1995 to 11.05.1996, 12.05.1956 to 30.01.1997 and from 03.04.1997 to 30.01.1999, for a period of 782 days. The respondent/ claimant had incurred considerable amount towards Medical Expenses and has claimed compensation of Rs.3,55,971.29 for the same. Rs.2,30,067.19 was re-imbursed. The respondent/claimant has deposed that he incurred loss of Rs. 1,25,904.10 towards Medical Expenses. He has further deposed that he had borrowed Rs.2,25,000/- to meet out the Medical Expenses. Ex.P.8-Certificate issued by Indian Bank was produced in support of his claim but, the Tribunal has rejected the claim on the ground that there was no proof to show that he spent the amount for bone reconstruction. 10. The respondent/claimant conten-ded that he was the Captain of Indian Bank Hockay team and produced Ex.P11-Certificate of Tamil Nadu Hockey Association. Ex.P12 is the Certificate of Merit on Athletics to prove the same. Ex.P13 is the Certificate issued by Tamil Nadu Hockey Association, Ex, P14 is the Merit Certificate issued by the Crescent Residential School in an Hockey tournament. Exs.P15 to P20 are also Certificates issued in various Hockey tournaments. P.W.1, claimant deposed that he had received many prizes in various tournaments and due to the injury, he would not be able to play Hockey forever and that he had lost considerable income. P.W.4, Senior Section Engineer in Integral Coach Factory and Coach to the Hockey Team has deposed that in each tournament, the claimant would earn Rs.5,000/- for playing tournament and Rs.3,000/- as Travelling allowance. Considering the fact that the respondent/ claimant was a good Hockey Player and that, he would have had chances to play atleast two tournaments in a year, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.l,60,000/- towards loss of earning from sports activities. The evidence produced shows that the respondent/claimant would participate in the tournaments atleast twice a year and he would earn considerable amount for playing each tournament and some amount as travelling allowance. Though the compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- for loss of future earning in sports activities is excessive, considering that the respondent/claimant would got atleast Rs.1000/-as travelling allowance, if not a sum of Rs.3,000/- as claimed, it can also be reasonably presumed that he would have earned, atleast Rs.4,000/- for each tournament. Though the compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- for loss of future earning in sports activities is excessive, considering that the respondent/claimant would got atleast Rs.1000/-as travelling allowance, if not a sum of Rs.3,000/- as claimed, it can also be reasonably presumed that he would have earned, atleast Rs.4,000/- for each tournament. Considering the nature of the game and the fitness required, it would not be possible to conclude that he would have played the tournament till the age of 40 years. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-may not be justifiable. However, considering the age of the respondent/claimant and his performance, it could be presumed, that he would have played Hockey for five more years and on that basis, the compensation for loss of future earning from participation in tournaments works out to Rs.40,000/- (Rs. 4,000/- x 2 tournaments = Rs.8,000/-per year x 5 years = Rs.40,000/-). 11. The respondent/claimant has claimed Rs.3,55,991.29 as Medical Expenses. He has been reimbursed a sum of Rs.2,30,0619. The Tribunal consider-ing the medical records has awarded Rs.1,25,904.10 and it is sustained. 12. As regards the contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.65,000/-as against 65% disability, Learned Counsel for respondent/claimant submitted that the respondent/claimant was on leave for nearly 782 days. He further submitted that the injury was very severe and multiple surgeries were performed in MIOT Hospitals. Nearly for three years, the respondent/claimant was totally incapacitated from doing his work and participating in any sports activities. He further submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the respondent/ claimant would have experienced considerable Pain and Suffering, agony and frustration, for the injury in his right leg and that no amount has been awarded under that head. Learnad Counsel also submitted that the respondent/claimant was a good Hockey player and participated in various tournaments right from his school days and therefore, certainly, he would have had better prospects in the future. The Tribunal has also failed to consider that there are chances of promotion and earning higher salary in future. P.W.3, Doctor, who has examined the respondent/claimant with reference to medical records has deposed that the respondent/claimant suffered 65% dis-ability and issued Ex.P.33-Disability Certificate. The respondent/claimant has suffered severe injuries in his right leg and three surgeries were performed. There-fore, I find that the compensation of Rs.65,000/- towards 65% disability is just and reasonable. 13. P.W.3, Doctor, who has examined the respondent/claimant with reference to medical records has deposed that the respondent/claimant suffered 65% dis-ability and issued Ex.P.33-Disability Certificate. The respondent/claimant has suffered severe injuries in his right leg and three surgeries were performed. There-fore, I find that the compensation of Rs.65,000/- towards 65% disability is just and reasonable. 13. It is evident from Ex.P3-Salary Certificate that the respondent/claimant was earning Ra.4,350/- per month. He had been on leave on loss of pay for 26 months and has lost Rs.1,13,100/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,13,100/-towards loss of pay for a period of 782 days, which in my opinion is just and reasonable. 14. Learned Counsel for the res-pondent/claimant placing reliance on a decision in Dr. K.G. Poovaiah v. General Manager, Karnataka State Road Trans-port Corporation, 2002 ACJ 1867, sub-mitted that the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.40,000/-towards Pain and Suffering. The respondent/claimant has pro-duced Ex.P9, Loan Certificate and deposed that the housing loan borrowed from Indian Bank was utilised for Medical Expenses. Since, he could not repay the loan in time, the Bank issued notice dated 03.06.1997. Though, the respondent/ claimant has let in evidence that he was unable to repay the loan amount, the Tribunal has not considered the same. The Tribuna1 ought to have considered the financial difficulties faced by the respon-dent/claimant, during the period of treat-ment, postoperative period and expenses incurred for surgeries. In the instant case, there is evidence to show that the respondent/claimant was treated as inpatient for considerable time and was also advised to come for treat-ment regularly in the Outpatient Depart-ment. Though Rs.15,000/-was claimed towards Pain and Suffering, the Tribunal has failed to consider the same. Con-sidering the nature of injury, surgeries performed on 10. 1995, 110. 1995, 23.03.1996 and 15.04.1997, Pain and Suffering experienced by the respondent/ claimant at the time of accident and during post-operative period, this Court deems it fit to award compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards Pain and Suffering. 15. Placing reliance on a decision in United India Insurance Company Ltd., Tiruchengode v. Veluchamy and another , 2005 (1) CTC 38 : 2005 (1) TN MAC 87 (DB), Learned Counsel for the respon-dent/claimant submitted that the Court has to consider that the respondent/claimant has lost his earning capacity and award, a just compensation for the same. The respondent/claimant has resumed to his duty and that therefore, there is no loss of future earning capacity. The respondent/claimant has resumed to his duty and that therefore, there is no loss of future earning capacity. The physical incapacity caused due to the accident for certain period has been considered by the Tribunal and an award has been made for loss of future earning from sports activities. The Tribunal ought to have considered that there is certainly loss of amenities and that he cannot walk fast or run as before. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to award Rs.10,000/- towards lose of amenities. 16. Placing reliance on a decision in S. Sridhar and others v. Kannupaiyan and another, 2006 (3) TLNJ 171, Learned Counsel far the respondent/claimant submitted that though no Appeal has been preferred for enhancement, the Court should invoice the provisions under Order 41, Rule 33, C.P.C. and award just and reasonable compensation. He further submitted that the Court can enhance compensation, even in the absence of Appeal for enhancement of compensation. 17. The respondent/claimant suffered injury in his right leg and therefore, he would have hired an auto-rickshaw or some other vehicle to go to the hospital for treatment. Therefore, claim, of Rs.5,000/- towards Transportation Charges is reasonable and the same is awarded. 18. The respondent/claimant has also claimed Rs.10,000/- towards Extra- Nourishment. He was inpatient for 26 months and three surgeries were perfor-med. Naturally, he would have taken extra nourishment for speedy recovery. There-fore, the claim of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the said head. 19. As a sportsman, the respondent/ claimant would have had better prospects in the Bank and even his promotion would have been accelerated. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to award Rs.15,000/- towards Loss of Future Prospects, Promo-tion, etc. and Rs.10,000/- for Mental Agony. The interest rate remains unaltered. 20. In the result, the award of Rs.4,64,004/-is reduced and respondent/ claimant is entitled to compensation of as apportioned hereunder: .(i) Medical Expenses : Rs. 1,25,901.00 .(ii) Permanent Disability : Rs. 65,000.00 (iii) Pain and Surffering : Rs. 50,000.00 .(iv) Loss of Earning in Playing Tournaments : Rs. 40,000.00 .(v) Loss of amenities : Rs. 10, 000.00 .(vi) Transportation Charges : Rs. 5,000.00 (vii) Extra-Nourishment : Rs. 10,000.00 (viii) Loss of prospects, promotion : Rs. 15,000.00 .(ix) Mental Agony : Rs. 10,000.00 .(x) Loss of Earning : Rs. 1,13,100.00 Total : Rs. 50,000.00 .(iv) Loss of Earning in Playing Tournaments : Rs. 40,000.00 .(v) Loss of amenities : Rs. 10, 000.00 .(vi) Transportation Charges : Rs. 5,000.00 (vii) Extra-Nourishment : Rs. 10,000.00 (viii) Loss of prospects, promotion : Rs. 15,000.00 .(ix) Mental Agony : Rs. 10,000.00 .(x) Loss of Earning : Rs. 1,13,100.00 Total : Rs. 4,41,004.00 The Tribunal is directed to refund the balance amount with proportionate accrued interest to the appellant-Transport Corporation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed with the above direction. No costs.