Judgment :- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award passed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Coimbatore in MCOP No.922 of 1995 dated 12.09.2001 awarding a sum of Rs.1,47,200/- directing the appellant/respondent-1 and respondent-5 to pay the same at 40: 60 ratio with interest at 9% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs. 2. The gist of the case is as follows:- On 06.06.1995 at about 3.15 hours, the injured/ claimant was waiting adjacent to the Pollachi Main Road near A.V.C. Stopping at Eachanari to cross the road. At that time, the appellant transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN-37-N-0355 came in a rash and negligent manner and knocked the injured/claimant. At that time, a lorry bearing Registration No.TMY 5659 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner ran over the injured/claimant who was lying on the ground and caused grievous injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was taken to CMC Hospital, Coimbatore where he took treatment for more than three months as an in-patient and he is still taking treatment. He went before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,47,200/- as compensation. 3. The first respondent before the lower Court is the appellant herein. The appellant had questioned the rash and negligence and the ratio of liability fixed on them and the quantum of compensation awarded by the lower Court in favour of the claimant. 4. The points for consideration in this appeal are: 1. Whether the appellant/first respondent is not liable to pay the compensation at the ratio of 40: 60 along with the fifth respondent herein to the claimant ? and 2. Whether the quantum of compensation fixed by the lower Court is high and it has to be reduced? POINTS: 5. The appellant is the first respondent before the lower Court. The claimant had suffered injuries in the road accident, which took place on 6. 1995 at about 3.15 p.m in Pollachi Main Road near ARC stopping at Eachanari. and 2. Whether the quantum of compensation fixed by the lower Court is high and it has to be reduced? POINTS: 5. The appellant is the first respondent before the lower Court. The claimant had suffered injuries in the road accident, which took place on 6. 1995 at about 3.15 p.m in Pollachi Main Road near ARC stopping at Eachanari. The second respondents driver/ the first respondent had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit at the claimant and thereby caused his fall on the road and thereafter, the lorry belonging to the fourth respondent driven by the third respondent had run over the claimant and caused serious injuries all over his body and therefore, the claimant had impleaded both the drivers of the vehicles and their owners and the Insurance Company clubbing them for the liability to pay the compensation to him. The lower Court after a full fledged enquiry had come to the conclusion of questioning the liability at 40% on the first respondent/(the driver of the second respondent) and 60% liability on the third respondent for the cause of action and accordingly, the liability to pay compensation is also fixed on the second respondent/the appellant herein and the fifth respondent/ the Insurance Company for the fourth respondent at the ratio of 40: 60. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,47,200/-towards the compensation payable to the claimant with 9% interest from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit in his argument that the lower court had found while apprising the evidence that the driver of the appellant, viz., the first respondent had driven the bus and dashed against the claimant and caused his fall only and actually, no injuries were sustained by the claimant due to such falling on the road, but the third respondent had driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and had run over the claimant and caused the entire injuries and therefore, the ratio fixed on the appellant is higher and it has to be reduced suitably. He would also further submit in his argument that the claimant is said to have worked as a load man and was earning a sum of Rs.100/- and for the said income, it has been awarded a sum of Rs.1 lakh. He would also further submit in his argument that the claimant is said to have worked as a load man and was earning a sum of Rs.100/- and for the said income, it has been awarded a sum of Rs.1 lakh. The lower Court had also awarded compensation for the pain and sufferings, which is fixed at Rs.20,000/- and for fracture again a sum of Rs.25,000/-has been awarded and such repetition of compensation could be corrected and reduced and the remaining quantum may be ordered to have been apportioned in between the appellant and the fifth respondent. 7. Therefore, he would submit in his argument that the award passed by the lower Court has to be reduced and the ratio of liability payable by the appellant may also be modified suitably and accordingly, the appeal may be allowed. 8. Learned counsel for the fifth respondent would submit in his argument that the quantum of compensation fixed by the lower Court and the liability fastened on the fifth respondent are not correct and even though he had not filed any separate appeal nor any cross objection in this appeal, he can also agitate the mistakes committed by the lower Court and the heads of compensation, in which the lower Court had awarded to the claimant may be varied, but however, the total quantum of compensation may be suitably modified and a justifiable order may be passed. 9. Learned counsel for the claimant would submit in his argument that the claimant had sustained injuries in the accident, in which both the vehicles belonging to second respondent/(appellant herein) and the fourth respondent were involved and therefore, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. He would further submit in his argument that the quantum of compensation as awarded by the lower Court is justifiable and the heads of compensation under which, the compensation were awarded may be different but the overall calculation proves that the total compensation is perfectly alright and therefore, it need not be revised. He would further submit in his argument that the quantum of compensation as awarded by the lower Court is justifiable and the heads of compensation under which, the compensation were awarded may be different but the overall calculation proves that the total compensation is perfectly alright and therefore, it need not be revised. He would further submit in his argument, the injuries sustained by the claimant would go a long way to show that his marital life has been lost due to the injuries and there is no necessity of proving it through an expert evidence and on that score also, the lower Court had considered the pathetic circumstances of the claimant and has awarded a just compensation. He would submit in his argument that the lower Court had also correctly apportioned the liability of payment of compensation by the second respondent (the appellant) and the fifth respondent and therefore, submit that it does not require any interference of the Court in the lower Courts award. Therefore, he has asked for dismissal of the appeal. 10. On a careful consideration of the arguments advanced on all the sides, we could understand that the accident had taken place on 6. 1995 at about 3.15 p.m at Pollachi Main Road near ARC stop at Eachanari was admitted and the liability apportioned on the rash and negligence on the drivers of the second respondent (appellant ) and the fifth respondent alone was questioned. Therefore, we could easily come to a conclusion that the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles and the claimant had sustained injuries. The apportionment of liability at 40% against the appellants driver, the first respondent was questioned by the appellant whereas, it has been agitated by the fifth respondent that it was only due to the hit of the bus belonging to the second respondent triggered the accident by falling of the claimant in front of the a lorry belonging to the fourth respondent as driven by the third respondent. Therefore, it has been further stressed that the apportionment as reached by the lower Court is perfectly alright. Considering the evidence adduced in respect of the rash and negligence of the accident, we could see that the thing will speak on the incident, viz., "res ipsa loquitur". Therefore, it has been further stressed that the apportionment as reached by the lower Court is perfectly alright. Considering the evidence adduced in respect of the rash and negligence of the accident, we could see that the thing will speak on the incident, viz., "res ipsa loquitur". The said maxim would go a long way to show that, due to the hitting of the claimant by the bus belonging to the second respondent against the claimant and his fall in front of the lorry belonging to the fourth respondent, the negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant and the driver of the fourth respondent (third respondent) is perfectly fixed by the lower Court in the ratio of 40: 60 Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the fixation of the said ratio. 11. Now coming to the quantum fixed by the lower Court, we could see that the lower Court had fixed the compensation for pain and suffering at Rs.20,000/- whereas we could see through the wound Certificate Ex.P2 that the claimant had sustained three simple injuries and three grievous injuries. Among them one of the grievous injuries is comprised of two fractures on the ribs. Therefore for the purpose of calculating the compensation, the fracture should have been treated as a separate injury. Therefore, the compensation for the pain and suffering, for four grievous injuries and two simple injuries would be arrived at Rs.26,000/-. The lower Court has also awarded a compensation separately for the fracture at Rs.25,000/-which is nothing but a repetition for the pain and sufferings. However, the lower Court had come to the conclusion of awarding a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards the loss of income to the claimant on the basis of his disability. It is no doubt, that the claimant has not examined the Doctor on his side to prove his disability. However, we could see that the injuries sustained by the claimant are on the vital parts and he as PW1 has spoken to the effect that he could not indulge in marital life due to the loss of his private part in the accident and therefore, his wife had also left him to her mothers house and on that aspect also he may be given compensation. The lower Court had considered the sufferings and had come to the conclusion of awarding a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards the loss of earnings and the loss of amenities. The said sum of Rs.1 lakh is not sufficient and it ought to have been awarded a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-. Apart from that, the claimant is stated to have taken treatment for 73 days in Government Hospital. No doubt the treatment in Government hospital are free of nature, however, considering the long duration of treatment and the expenditure, which are likely to have been incurred by the claimant could have been assessed, and a sum of Rs.9,000/- is awarded towards the same. 12. The revised compensation are as under: Loss of earnings/amenities - Rs.1,10,000/- Pain and sufferings - Rs. 26,000/- Medical expenses - Rs.9,000/- Transport expenses - Rs.200/- Nourishment - Rs.2,000/- Total Rs.1,47,200/- =========== 13. In these circumstances, when we calculate the award amount to be passed in favour of the claimant, we have reached the same sum of Rs.1,47,200/- towards the compensation payable to the claimant. Since the quantum calculated by this Court also coincides with the compensation calculated by the lower Court, this Court finds that the appeal does not deserve any merit and the appeal has accordingly to be dismissed. The compensation amount of Rs.1,47,200/-with interest at 9% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realisation to be payable by the respondents 1 and 2 and 3 and 5 in the apportionment of 40:60 is confirmed. 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs . The injured/claimant is entitled to withdraw the remaining award amount from the lower Court.