Judgment :- Being aggrieved with the apportionment of 50% liability of the compensation payable to the First Respondent/Injured Claimants, State Transport Corporation (STC) has preferred these Appeals. Since, both the Appeals arise out of the common accident and arising out of Common Order of Tribunal, both Appeals were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this Common Judgment. 2. Brief facts, which are relevant for the disposal of these Appeals are as follows:- (i) On 012. 1995, Claimants boarded the STC bus bearing Regn.No. TN-45-N-0763 and the Claimants occupied the seat just behind the driver of the bus. The bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and while the bus was so proceeding, a Tractor bearing Regn.No. TAS-9991 attached with Trailer bearing Regn.No.TAS-9992 owned by the Second Respondent and Insured with the Third Respondent driven in high speed, hit against the bus. Due to the accident, the Claimant-Ganesan sustained fracture injury of both bones of right leg, 2 c.m. punctured and sutured wound over the right leg. Claimant-Ponnusamy sustained fracture of both bones of right leg, fracture of fibula of left leg, abrasion over right leg and right second toe. After the accident, Claimants were admitted in Gokulam Hospital, where they had taken treatment as inpatient. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of both vehicles, Claimants filed Petitions U/s. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.5,77,500/- (M.C.O.P.No. 331 of 1996) and Rs.1,76,000/-(M.C.O.P.No.117 of 2000). (ii)Opposing the claim, STC has filed counter stating that the Tractor and Trailer came at high speed and without dipping and dimming of its head light hit against the bus. The bus driver has swerved the bus to the left side and by so swerving, the bus driver has averted the major accident. A Criminal Case was also registered only against the driver of the Tractor and therefore, STC is not liable to pay any compensation. (iii) Insurance Co. has also filed counter opposing the claim and denying negligent driving of the Tractor. Insurance Co. has also alleged that as per R.C. Book and Insurance Policy, the Tractor and Trailer insured with the Third Respondent can be used only for agricultural purpose, but at the time of accident, the vehicle was used for carrying Tar Tanker (hire), which is in violation of policy condition and therefore, Insurance Co. Insurance Co. has also alleged that as per R.C. Book and Insurance Policy, the Tractor and Trailer insured with the Third Respondent can be used only for agricultural purpose, but at the time of accident, the vehicle was used for carrying Tar Tanker (hire), which is in violation of policy condition and therefore, Insurance Co. is not liable to pay any compensation. Insurance Co. has also disputed the driver of the Tractor possessing valid driving licence. 3. Before the Tribunal, Claimants examined themselves as P.Ws. 1 and 4. Dr.Elangovan and Dr.Ramamurthy were examined as P.Ws. 2 and 5. Employer of Claimant-Ganesan was examined as P.W.3. Exs. P.1 to P.15 were marked. On the side of Respondents, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. Assistant Administrative Officer of Insurance Co. was examined as R.W.2. Official of MVI Office, Aathur, was examined as R.W.3. The insurance policy of the Tractor and Trailer was marked as Ex.R.1 and the driving licence of the Tractor driver was marked as Ex.R.2. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal held that both the vehicles were traversing the curve and drivers of both vehicles have not exercised due care in respect of the on coming vehicles. Finding that both the drivers were equally responsible for the accident, the Tribunal has apportioned the negligence to both the drivers at 50:50. As the negligence was apportioned on both tort-feasors, Tribunal has apportioned the liability payable to the Claimants at 50:50. In M.C.O.P.No.331 of 1996, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,91,593/-and in M.C.O.P.No. 117 of 2000, Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.1,25,747/- as under: 4. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the Appellant-Corporation Mr.S.V.Vasanthakumar has submitted that the Criminal Case was filed against the Tractor driver and while so, Tribunal erred in apportioning the liability upon the bus driver. It was further submitted that the Tribunal, ought to have taken note of the fact that the Tractor and Trailer, which came in the opposite direction did not exercise due care in dipping and dimming the head light, which was mainly responsible for the accident and the Tribunal ought to have held that the Tractor driver was solely responsible for the accident. Insofar as the quantum, the learned counsel for the Appellant-Corporation has submitted that the Tribunal erred in adopting multiplier method for awarding the compensation for Permanent Disability and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very much on the higher side. 5. Reiterating the findings of the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the Third Respondent-Insurance Co. Mr.S.Arunkumar has submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record, Tribunal has rightly apportioned the negligence and the liability upon both tort-feasors and such factual finding need not be interfered with. 6. Taking me through the materials on record, the learned counsel for the First Respondent-Claimants has submitted that the Claimants sustained fracture injuries and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. It was further submitted that the Tribunal having held that both the vehicles are responsible for the accident, Tribunal has rightly apportioned the liability and the same need not be upset and the said finding cannot be said to be erroneous. 7. The main objection of STC is apportioning of 50% liability upon the bus driver. P.Ws. 1 and 2, who were injured in the accident have in their evidence has consistently stated that they were travelling in the bus and at that time, the bus was proceeding at a high speed and the Tractor and Trailer driven in rash and negligent manner, which came in the opposite direction collided with the bus and that there was head on collision. The Claimant-Ponnusamy was examined as P.W.4. In his evidence, P.W.4 has stated that the bus was driven in rash and negligent manner and there was head on collision of both the vehicles. 8. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 would show that the accident was due to the negligence of both the vehicles. A Criminal Case in Cr.No.530 of 1995 for the offences U/s. 279 and 337 IPC was registered against the Tractor driver. FIR was registered based on the complaint lodged by STC bus driver. Of course in the FIR, the defacto complainant has alleged that the Tractor was driven in rash and negligent manner and that the bus driver swerved the bus to the left side to avoid collision. FIR was registered based on the complaint lodged by STC bus driver. Of course in the FIR, the defacto complainant has alleged that the Tractor was driven in rash and negligent manner and that the bus driver swerved the bus to the left side to avoid collision. In the FIR, it is further alleged that the Tractor and Trailer did not have danger light signaling carrying of Tar Tanker (hire) and the accident was only due to recklessness of the Tractor driver. The recitals in Ex.P.1-FIR are the interested testimony of the bus driver. Of course, the Tractor driver had admitted the offence as is seen from Ex.P.4. 9. Merely because the Criminal Case was registered against the Tractor driver, it cannot be concluded that the Tractor driver was solely responsible for the accident. While the passenger vehicle is proceeding in the Highways, the driver of the bus owes greater care and responsibility. To ensure safety of the passengers, who are travelling in the bus, the bus driver is expected to foresee the negligence of the other on coming vehicles. The evidence of R.W.1 does not indicate any such care being taken. Both the vehicles were traversing small curve. R.W.1 has seen the Tractor at about distance of 20 feet. While traversing the curve, the bus driver was expected to sound horn and proceed slowly. As rightly held by the Tribunal, had the bus driver exercised a little more care and caution, the accident could have been averted and rightly held that the accident was due to negligence of both the vehicles. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident was due to negligence of both the vehicles is based on the materials on record. As the Tribunal has attributed negligence equally to both the vehicles, each of the joint tort-feasors is responsible for the accident and are liable to pay the compensation to the injured Claimants. 10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation in MCOP.No.331/96, the Claimant had sustained fracture of both bones right leg, punctured wound over the right leg lower end measuring 2 cm, sutured wound on the lower 3rd of right leg, swelling and tenderness over the lower 3rd of right leg and plate Osteosynthesis tibia and fibula right side lower 3rd done. 10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation in MCOP.No.331/96, the Claimant had sustained fracture of both bones right leg, punctured wound over the right leg lower end measuring 2 cm, sutured wound on the lower 3rd of right leg, swelling and tenderness over the lower 3rd of right leg and plate Osteosynthesis tibia and fibula right side lower 3rd done. In his evidence P.W.1 has stated that after the accident he was admitted in Gokulam hospital where he had taken treatment as in-patient for 24 days. Surgery was done and plate was inserted in the right leg where he had sustained fracture injury. P.W.1 has further stated that even after the intensive treatment, the Claimant is not in a position to walk or drive. P.W.1 being a driver with fracture in the leg is crippled in carrying on his normal avocation. 11. P.W.2 Dr. Elangovan who had examined P.W.1 had noticed insertion of screws and plates in the right leg. There was also surgical wound scar in the right leg about 15 cm length. P.W.2 also noticed surgical wound scar. There was also depression felt at the site of injury. Because of the fracture of bone, the ankle joint was restricted by 15 degree and 20 degree. P.W.2 has opined that the Claimant would have difficulty in walking. P.W.2 has assessed the Permanent Disability at 25%. 12. Taking the monthly income as Rs.3000/-and adopting multiplier 17 and taking percentage of disability at 25%, the Tribunal has calculated Rs.1,53,000/-for Permanent Disability. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-for Pain and Suffering, Rs.13,593/- for Medical expenses and Rs.5000/-for Transport charges and Extra nourishment and awarded total compensation of Rs.1,91,593/-. Inspite of adopting multiplier method and awarding lump sum compensation, the Tribunal could have itemised the award. But merely because the Tribunal has adopted multiplier method, it cannot be said that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount for Pain and Suffering, loss of amenities and loss of income during the period of treatment. Having regard to the nature of injuries and duration of treatment, the quantum of compensation of Rs.1,91,593/- awarded to the Claimant cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. 13. C.M.A.No.1521/2003 (MCOP.No.117/2000) The Claimant Ponnusamy has sustained fracture of both bones in right leg and fracture of left leg fibula. Having regard to the nature of injuries and duration of treatment, the quantum of compensation of Rs.1,91,593/- awarded to the Claimant cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. 13. C.M.A.No.1521/2003 (MCOP.No.117/2000) The Claimant Ponnusamy has sustained fracture of both bones in right leg and fracture of left leg fibula. In his evidence P.W.4 has stated that after the accident he was admitted in Gokulam hospital where he had taken treatment as inpatient for 12 days and thereafter continued his treatment as out-patient. While, he was under treatment surgery was performed and plate was fixed with screws in his right leg. 14. At the time of accident, P.W.4 was working as Helper in TNEB and he was aged 28 years and was getting salary of Rs.4500/-. In his evidence P.W.1 has stated that even after the treatment, he is not in a position to walk and that he is suffering from pain. Because of the fracture, there is also depression in the right leg. 15. P.W.5 Dr.Ramamoorthy had examined the Claimant Ponnusamy and noticed post operative scar present in the right leg. There was also deformity of right leg and tenderness present over the fracture sites. P.W.4 had noticed that the movement of right ankle and right knee diminished. X-ray disclosed with fracture of right tibia was mal-united and there was angulation at fracture site. P.W.4 had assessed the Permanent Disability at 40%. The Claimant then working as Helper with fracture in both leg finds it very difficult to carry on his normal avocation. Having regard to the nature of injuries and avocation of the Claimant, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for Permanent Disability; Rs.5,000/-towards Pain and Suffering; Rs.5000/- for Transport charges and Extra nourishment and Rs.15,747/- towards Medical expenses. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.1,25,747/-. Having regard to the nature of injuries and duration of treatment and avocation of the Claimant, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. 16. In the result, "The Order of the Tribunal in MCOP.Nos.331 of 1996 and 117 of 2000 are confirmed and both CMAs are dismissed. "STC and third Respondent-Insurance Company are directed to deposit the compensation amount apportioned to them by the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. 16. In the result, "The Order of the Tribunal in MCOP.Nos.331 of 1996 and 117 of 2000 are confirmed and both CMAs are dismissed. "STC and third Respondent-Insurance Company are directed to deposit the compensation amount apportioned to them by the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. (if they have not so far deposited the compensation amount) "On such deposit, the Claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire compensation payable to them along with accrued interest. There is no order as to costs in these Appeals.