Judgment :- The appeal is preferred by the claimant against the award dated 24.02.2006 made in MCOP No.4449 of 2000 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The claimant was injured in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 29.06.2000 at about 16.30 hours. The appellant/claimant was travelling as a passenger in MTC bus belonging to respondent-Transport Corporation bearing registration No.TN01-N-2798 from Teynampet to Kundrathur. The driver of the said bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at terrific speed along the Porur-Poonamallee High Road and grazed against the on coming unknown lorry and caused the accident, due to which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his right hand. Immediately he was admitted in the Government General Hospital, Chennai as an inpatient from 29.06.2000 to 19.07.2000. He claimed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation. The respondent-Transport Corporation resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the bus bearing registration No.TN-01-N-2798 involved in the accident? 2. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing registration No.TN-01-N-2798? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? 4. To what relief?" After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the composite negligence of the driver of the bus, driver of the unknown lorry and also the claimant and fixed the percentage of negligence on the driver of the bus at 30%, on the part of the unknown lorry driver at 30% and that of the claimant at 40% as contributory negligence and awarded a compensation of Rs.18,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, the details of which are as under:- Loss of income Rs. 36,000/- Loss of income during treatment period Rs. 1,000/- Transport charges Rs. 1,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 1,000/-Attendant charges Rs. 1,000/- Pain and sufferings Rs. 5,000/- Permanent partial disability Rs. 15,000/- Total compensation Rs. 60,000/- 30% negligence on the part of driver of the bus(60,000x30/100) Rs. 18,000 The Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.18,000/-to the appellant/claimant. Aggrieved by that award, the claimant has filed the present appeal for enhancement. 3. 1,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 1,000/-Attendant charges Rs. 1,000/- Pain and sufferings Rs. 5,000/- Permanent partial disability Rs. 15,000/- Total compensation Rs. 60,000/- 30% negligence on the part of driver of the bus(60,000x30/100) Rs. 18,000 The Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.18,000/-to the appellant/claimant. Aggrieved by that award, the claimant has filed the present appeal for enhancement. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant questioning the negligence as well as quantum of compensation submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as claimed by the claimant and the amount awarded under various heads is very low and meagre and the Tribunal has not followed the principles of assessment before passing the award. He further submitted that the Tribunal erred in fixing 40% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant without any basis. The order of the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and it is a fit case for enhancement. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent-Transport Corporation submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and fixed the percentage of negligence correctly and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On the side of the respondent, RW1-Muthuvel, who is the investigator was examined and Ex.R1 final report submitted by the Sub Inspector of police, Nandambakkam Police Station was marked to substantiate their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. PW2 is Dr.Saichandran. Ex.P1 is the discharge summary. Ex.P2 is series of photos. Ex.P3 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P4 is the disability certificate. Ex.P5 is X-ray. Ex.P6 is bus ticket. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the bus, driver of the unknown lorry and the claimant and fixed the percentage of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus at 30%, on the part of the unknown lorry driver at 30% and that of the claimant at 40% as contributory negligence. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that at the time of the accident the claimant was seated on the rear side and to establish the same, the respondent-Transport Corporation has not examined their driver. He further submitted that sitting in the rear side of the bus and placing his right hand on the window of the bus would not be considered as negligence. Therefore, there is no contributory negligence. The learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of STATE OF U.P. THROUGH SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT VS. VINOD KUMAR BHATNAGAR AND OTHERS reported in 1984 A.C.J. 776, wherein in para 10 it has been held as follows: "10. To the same effect is the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Ramesh Kumar Awasthi V. Collector, Saharanpur. In that case also the appellant was travelling by a bus. Another bus coming from the opposite direction grazed against the body of the bus in which the appellant was sitting. But the impact of the grazing of the bus the window glass was smashed and the appellants right hand was cut and slit from the above the right elbow joint. It was held that it was the duty of both drivers to insure safety of the passengers and for that purpose they should have taken care to leave sufficient space between the two vehicles at the time of crossing each other. K.N.Singh, J. Speaking for the Bench observed: "The legal position is clear that is the duty of the driver to drive the vehicle in such a manner as to safeguard the safety of the passengers. If two vehicles while crossing each other graze their bodies without there being any justification for the same a presumption about the negligence of the drivers would arise. Both the drivers should have realised that if the two vehicles cross each other in speed without leaving sufficient space between them the safety of the passengers would be jeopardised. It was the duty of both the drivers to ensure safety of passengers." "It is a matter of common knowledge that passengers sitting near the window rest their hand on the window-sill specially when on a long journey in the countryside. The driver of a bus carrying passengers on long journeys is expected to have knowledge of this fact. It was the duty of both the drivers to ensure safety of passengers." "It is a matter of common knowledge that passengers sitting near the window rest their hand on the window-sill specially when on a long journey in the countryside. The driver of a bus carrying passengers on long journeys is expected to have knowledge of this fact. The drivers of the two buses were bound to take precaution against the possibility that while grazing each other some person might be placing his hand or elbow on the window-sill. Since the two vehicles came too close to each other resulting into accident without there being justification for the same it has to be presumed that the drivers had failed to take reasonable care for the safety of passengers and therefore they were negligent. In Jamnagar Motor Transport Union V. Gokaldas Pitambers L.Rs. The Supreme Court in similar situation where the two buses grazed while crossing each other held that both the drives were negligent. The view that we are taking has been taken by various High Courts in a number of cases. Reference may be made to State of Punjab Vs. Guranwanti, Sushma Mitra Vs. M.P.S.R.T.C., Delhi Transport Undertaking v. Krishnawanti and Genral manager, State Road Transport Corpn. v. Krishnarao." The learned counsel also submitted that the accident resulting in the injuries to the claimant occurred on account of the negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles i.e. bus and lorry. In this case the accident had occurred since both the vehicles crossed each other in speed without leaving sufficient space between them and caused accident. Therefore, it cannot be said that the claimant was guilty of the contributory negligence because he placed his hand on the window. In the case of JAMNAGAR MOTOR TRANSPORT UNION PRIVATE LTD., VS. GOKALDAS PITAMBERS L.RS. Therefore, it cannot be said that the claimant was guilty of the contributory negligence because he placed his hand on the window. In the case of JAMNAGAR MOTOR TRANSPORT UNION PRIVATE LTD., VS. GOKALDAS PITAMBERS L.RS. reported in 1966 ACJ 42(S.C.) wherein the Apex Court observed that the act of resting his head could not be said to be a rash act and held as follows: "Exactly identical is the situation before me, namely, that the applicant was resting his hand on the window and the hook of the incoming vehicle caused injuries to him and on this basis it could not be said that the injuries were suffered by him by his keeping his hand on the window." After considering the principles enunciated in the above said judgments, it is reasonable to conclude that it is only the drivers of the bus as well as the lorry, who are responsible for the accident and no material was placed to show that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. In such circumstance, this Court is of the view that 40% negligence fixed by the Tribunal on the part of the claimant is set aside and therefore, the composite negligence is fixed only on the part of the drivers of the bus as well as lorry equally. 6. At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 46 years. PW1-the claimant deposed that he was a cooly and earning Rs.3000/-per month. He further deposed that he suffered fracture in his right hand and immediately after the accident, he was admitted in the Government General Hospital, Chennai, as an in-patient and took treatment from 29.06.2000 to 19.07.2000. PW2-Doctor, who examined the claimant, has assessed the disability at 20% and issued Ex.P4 disability certificate. He deposed that he examined the patient clinically and even as per Workmens Compensation Act, it amounts to 50% disability. He further deposed that the claimant had only 20 degree of movement in his right elbow joint and right arm and assessed the disability as 50% partial and permanent. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence, fixed the monthly income at Rs.2000/-and taken 50% as permanent and partial disability and fixed the monthly income at Rs.1000/-(Rs.2,000 x 50/100). He further deposed that the claimant had only 20 degree of movement in his right elbow joint and right arm and assessed the disability as 50% partial and permanent. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence, fixed the monthly income at Rs.2000/-and taken 50% as permanent and partial disability and fixed the monthly income at Rs.1000/-(Rs.2,000 x 50/100). Considering the age of the claimant as 46 years, the loss of income is calculated for a period 3 years and arrived at the loss of income at Rs.36,000/- (Rs.1,000/-x 12 x 3). Considering the injury sustained and the period of treatment, I feel that the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.1000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, which I feel is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/-towards transport charges. Considering the period of treatment i.e. from 29.06.2000 to 19.07.2000, the amount awarded under this head is also very reasonable and the same is also confirmed. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. The claimant suffered fracture of his right hand elbow. Hence, I feel that the amount awarded under this head is also very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant vehemently contended that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards damages to the clothes. In such circumstances, I feel that it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.500/-under this head. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards permanent and partial disability. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant vehemently contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head is very low and meagre. Normally the Courts would award Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/- per percentage of disability. After considering the evidence of PW2-doctor,, who assessed the disability at 50%, I feel that it would be reasonable and appropriate to award Rs.2000/- for 1% disability. Accordingly the award under the head partial permanent disability works out to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.2,000 x 50%) as against Rs.15,000/-. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Loss of income for three years Rs. 36,000/- Loss of income during treatment period Rs. 1,000/- Transport charges Rs. 1,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 1,000/- Attendant charges Rs. Accordingly the award under the head partial permanent disability works out to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.2,000 x 50%) as against Rs.15,000/-. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Loss of income for three years Rs. 36,000/- Loss of income during treatment period Rs. 1,000/- Transport charges Rs. 1,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 1,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 1,000/- Pain and sufferings Rs. 5,000/- Damage to the clothes 500/- Permanent partial disability Rs. 1,00,000/- Total compensation Rs.1,64,000/- Rounded off to Rs.1,65,000/- Composite negligence on both the drivers (Rs.1,65,000 x 50/100) Rs. 82,500/- Tribunal already awarded Rs. 18,000/- Enhancement amount Rs. 64,500/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.64,500/-(Rs.82,500 – 18,000) with interest at 6% from the date of petition. 7. The respondent-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.64,500/- with interest at 6% from the date of petition within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant-claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. 8. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.