Judgment :- Common Judgment: In view of the interconnectivity of the facts, a common order is being passed. .2. The averments found in the claim petition, in brief, are as follows:- .On 211. 1996, at about 7.50 hours, while the claimant was riding the bicycle and proceeding on the left side of the Sydenhams Road, opposite to Nehru Studium, the driver of the MGR Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No.45-N-0609, who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner from south to north, dashed against the claimant from his back, and thereby, caused the accident resulting serious injuries to the claimant. He was earning a sum of Rs.800/-per month by working as umbrella maker in an umbrella company. He was aged about 19 years at the time of accident. The accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the Transport Corporation bus driver. Hence, the appellant claimed a compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-before the Tribunal. .3. In the counter filed by M.G.R. Transport Corporation Ltd, the following averments are found:- .It is incorrect to state that the bus driver dashed against the appellant at the time of accident. He was driving the vehicle carefully. On hearing noise from the people on the road, the driver suddenly stopped the bus and on seeing that the claimant had fallen down with his cycle on the back side of the bus, the conductor and the driver immediately took the petitioner in an auto to the Government Hospital and the accident was reported to C-2 Police station. He further submits that the claimant, without following the traffic rules, in a negligent manner obliquely deviating from his track himself dashed against the left side body of the bus, fell down and received simple injuries. There was no mistake on the part of the bus driver. The claim made by the petitioner is excessive and the petition may be dismissed. .4. After analysing the oral evidence on record, the learned trial Judge anchored liability upon the bus driver and directed the M.G.R. Transport Corporation to pay a compensation of Rs.3,79,800/- to the claimant along with the interest at the rate of 9%. The claim made by the petitioner is excessive and the petition may be dismissed. .4. After analysing the oral evidence on record, the learned trial Judge anchored liability upon the bus driver and directed the M.G.R. Transport Corporation to pay a compensation of Rs.3,79,800/- to the claimant along with the interest at the rate of 9%. On the one hand, the transport corporation, aggrieved with the award on the aspects of fastening the liability and the quantum arrived at by the Tribunal, has preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.1741 of 2002 and on the other, the claimant has preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.1436 of 2002 questioning the quantum fixed by the Tribunal praying for an enhanced compensation of Rs.5,56,410/-. 5. The claimant has stated that while he was proceeding along Sydenhams Road, the bus belonging to the M.G.R. Transport Corporation came from his back and dashed against his cycle and hence, the accident occurred. 6. Conversely, R.W.1, the driver of the bus would depose that the claimant had dashed against the back side of the bus and thereby, invited the accident. 7. While the truth of the matter is expected to come out from the materials, the rough site plan prepared by the police in the scene of crime throws much light on the point. The rough sketch shows the cycle has fallen down on the left front side of the bus. If the version of R.W.1 the driver of the bus is a true one, the cycle should have been found on the back side of the bus. Thus, the rough site plan would falsify the statement of the bus driver. 8. The First Information Report was lodged by a friend of the claimant, who too came along with the claimant in another cycle. He has stated that bus came from the back side of the claimant and hit against his cycle. Ex.R.1 is the copy of the judgment rendered in C.C.No.2818 of 1997 dated 10.05.2000 by the M.M Court, Chennai acquitting the bus driver by observing that it has not been established by the prosecution that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligence of the driving. It is well settled that the judgment passed by the Criminal Court does not have any bearing on the civil proceedings. The reason is that the burden of proof in a criminal case is entirely different from that of civil case. It is well settled that the judgment passed by the Criminal Court does not have any bearing on the civil proceedings. The reason is that the burden of proof in a criminal case is entirely different from that of civil case. Even though if a person is found not guilty by a Criminal Court, it would not be an embargo for a Civil Court to base its decision on the basis of the material available before it. .9. The proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to be shown in the criminal case, whereas it has to be brought to the Court by the preponderance of probabilities in a Civil case. Even if a judgment of the Criminal Court is produced before the Court / tribunal, it has to re-evaluate the evidence on record independently of the evidence on record in the criminal case. The observation in a criminal case cannot constitute a decisive factor in the Civil Court proceedings. Irrespective of the decision of the Criminal Court, on appreciation of the materials available on record, the Civil Court is always at liberty to come out with a different verdict. 10. Adverting to the facts of the present case and in the light of the evidence available in the form of rough site plan, oral accounts, the statements of the claimants and the informant to the FIR, it could be observed that the bus driver was at fault at the time of accident. The Court could never ignore the valuable piece of evidence as available in the rough sketch which has crucified the defence of the transport Corporation. There is nothing wrong on the part of the Tribunal in having the liability fastened upon the bus driver. This Court confirms the said finding. 11. In so far as the quantum of compensation reached by the Tribunal is concerned, the learned counsel for the claimant would contend that the claimant has virtually reduced a vegetable and that he has been permanently disabled from doing work and that the award of compensation granted by the Tribunal under various heads is on the lower side. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the transport Corporation would submit that the quantum fixed by the Tribunal is excessive and that a lower quantum should have been fixed. 13. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the transport Corporation would submit that the quantum fixed by the Tribunal is excessive and that a lower quantum should have been fixed. 13. The sufferings of the claimant could be inferred from the discharge summaries Exs.P.1 to P.3 issued by the Department of Surgical Gastroenterology and Proctology in Government Hospital, Chennai. From these documents, it has to come to light that the claimant had been taking treatment for more than one year as inpatient on various occasions. They also narrate various medical treatments offered to the claimant. 14. Ex.P.1 is the discharge summary which shows that he was admitted to the hospital on 211. 1996 and was discharged on 15.01.1997. He suffered fracture in his left inferior pubic ramus, besides rectal tear and urethral injury as well. Bleeding from urethral and rectal portion were also found. 15. Doctor P.W.2 has stated that the claimant is suffering from 70% of the disability. He has found injuries on perineum and anal sphincter muscle and he has undergone sigmoid colostomy surgeries. He assessed disability for colostomy and urinal disability at 40% and 30% respectively. He is also of the opinion that there was complete tear of anus rectum and anal spinchters – fibrosis with extensive scar and oozings from perineum and that he cannot pass motion via anus (natural path way). In General Hospital, Chennai, he was diagnosed with anal-incontinence and was referred to electro myometric study. Due to urethral stricture, frequently dilated fibrous scar over root of penis and he is passing thin stream of urination. P.W.4, an Orthopaedician, who has given the disability Certificate, opines that the claimant suffers from permanent disability to the tune of 50%. It is his further statement that due to the fracture in his pelvis the claimant could not even stand for a long time. .16. Ex.P.5, the salary certificate issued by Ebrahim Currim & Sons, who are umbrella manufacturers (Deer mark) in which, it is stated that the claimant was under training in the year 1996 that he was able to earn atleast Rs.1,500 to 1,800 per month and since he met with an accident, on 211. 1996 after returning from his job, he has been removed from his training. .The two doctors have opined that the claimant is suffering from permanent disability to the tune of 70% and 50% respectively due to various injuries. 17. 1996 after returning from his job, he has been removed from his training. .The two doctors have opined that the claimant is suffering from permanent disability to the tune of 70% and 50% respectively due to various injuries. 17. Considering the evidence of doctors on record and perusing the medical records, it is more appropriate to fix the permanent disability at 90%. The claimant was 19 years at the time of accident. In a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2007(2) TNMAC 399, Oriental Insurance Company, Puducherry Vs. K.Balasubramanian & Others, while discussing about the multiplier to be adopted in a case of non-fatal case with 100% permanent disability for a man of 26 years, the learned Judges deemed it appropriate to adopt multiplier at 15%. In that decision, it has also been observed that as it is the case of injury resulting the total permanent disability, the question of deducting one third amount from the income of the injured will not arise. .18. Having regard to the circumstances, this Court considers fit to apply multiplier 15 and the monthly income at Rs.1500/-. The total loss of income could be arrived at Rs.2,43,000/- if the permanent disability of 90% is taken into account. The Court cannot award compensation under the different heads such as permanent disability, loss of earning power and future loss of income in like cases. For the aforesaid three heads, a sum of Rs.2,43,000/- as afore-noted could be granted. .19. The following are the heads and the award by the tribunal:- Loss of income Rs. 4,800/-Loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/- Marriage prospects Rs. 75,000/-Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-Permanent Disability Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of earning power Rs.1,00,000/- .Rs.3,79 ,800/- 120. Bearing in mind the sufferings experienced by the claimant and the difficulties which he would face in future, this Court fixes the compensation under various heads, which is as follows: Pain and suffering : Rs.75,000/-Transport : Rs.10,000/-Extra nourishment : Rs.15,000/- Loss of income : Rs.20,000/-Permanent disability, loss of earning power and future loss of income : Rs.2,43,000/- Loss of marital prospects : Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of amenities : Rs. 50,000/- Medical expenses : Rs. 10,000/-.............. Rs.5,23,000/-.............. The claimant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.5,23,000/-. 21. In fine, CMA 1741 of 2002 is dismissed. 50,000/- Medical expenses : Rs. 10,000/-.............. Rs.5,23,000/-.............. The claimant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.5,23,000/-. 21. In fine, CMA 1741 of 2002 is dismissed. C.M.A.No.1436 of 2002 is allowed in part awarding enhanced compensation of Rs.5,23,000/-to be paid by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram along with interest at the rate of 7.5% for enhanced compensation within eight weeks from the date of the order. Before the Tribunal, the Claimant is entitled to withdraw the same after deposit by the Corporation. In other aspects, the award passed by the Tribunal shall hold good.