Judgment :- The above civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner against the decree and judgment passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Nagapattinam, awarding a total compensation of Rs.40,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. The appellant/claimant, aggrieved by the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation; 3. The facts of the case are as follows;- On 13.02.2001, at about 03.00 p.m. When the petitioner was riding his TVS 50 Motor cycle, bearing registration No. PY-02-A-1649, on the extreme left side of the Road, near Pasana Pirivu Vaikkal, Mannargudi to Thiruthurapoondi, Main Road, the respondent/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN-49-N-0025, which was coming from east direction driven with rash and negligent manner, hit against the petitioner. Due to this accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries in his head, fracture in frontal bone and multiple injury in his body. Immediately, the petitioner was admitted in the Government Hospital, Mannargudi and he was referred to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. He took treatment at Government Hospital, Thanjavur for more than a month as inpatient. After discharge from the hospital, he took treatment with a private doctor. In connection with this accident, the Mannargudi Police has registered a case against the bus driver in Cr.No.112/2001 on an alleged offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. Due to the said accident, the petitioner often gets giddiness, headaches and gets into a State of unconsciousness. He is not able to do day to day work normally. 4. The said bus involved in the accident in a State owned corporation bus. Hence, the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has claimed compensation under the below mentioned heads; TABLE Altogether the petitioner has claimed Rs.2,78,000/-, but the petitioner has restricted his claim to Rs.2,00,000/-. 5. The respondent/transport corporation has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim stating that on 13.02.2001, the respondent bus bearing registration No.TN-49-N-0025, passenger bus, was taken by its driver at 02.05 p.m. From Tiruthuraipoondi towards Mannargudi. 5. The respondent/transport corporation has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim stating that on 13.02.2001, the respondent bus bearing registration No.TN-49-N-0025, passenger bus, was taken by its driver at 02.05 p.m. From Tiruthuraipoondi towards Mannargudi. When the bus was on the way to Mannargudi and when it was nearing Rettaipuli, the claimants vehicle TVS 50 bearing registration No.PY02A 1649, driven by its rider with high speed and on a rash and negligent manner and in a drunken condition was coming opposite the bus. On seeing this, the driver of the Bus stopped the bus. The petitioner himself had fallen on the road and sustained injuries. Immediately the people nearby that area assembled on the spot and they had given a complaint to the police, with malafide intentions to claim compensation from the respondent. 6. The allegation of the respondent in his counter statement is that the bus driver is at fault is untrue. Further, the respondent has alleged that the petitioner has sustained only simple injuries. The income and age of the petitioner is also incorrect and as such the petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation. 7. On the side of the appellant/claimant, three witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW3. PW1 is the claimant, PW2 is one Dr. Balachandran and PW3 is one Dr. Sundar. On the side of the claimant, seven documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7, namely 1) First Information Report, 2) Wound certificate, 3) Motor Vehicle Inspectors report, 4) Claimants Medical treatment particulars, 5) disability certificate, 6) Photo with negative and 7) another disability certificate. 8. PW1, in his evidence has stated that on 13.02.2001 at 3.00 p.m., while he was travelling in his Two wheeler Motor cycle on the left side of the road, at a slow speed, from Mannargudi to Thiruthuraipoondi, the State owned passenger Transport Corporation bus, bearing registration No.TN-49-N-0025, ridden by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the two wheeler of PW1 and dragged the two wheeler for about 15 feet, then rolled over the two wheeler and then stopped. As a result PW1 fell down and sustained injuries on his head, legs, face and left thigh and also other bodily injuries. Subsequently, he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Mannargudi as inpatient and then admitted to Thanjavur Government Hospital for treatment. As a result PW1 fell down and sustained injuries on his head, legs, face and left thigh and also other bodily injuries. Subsequently, he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Mannargudi as inpatient and then admitted to Thanjavur Government Hospital for treatment. Due to the said accident, he had sustained injuries on his left head, left side of face and cheek, eyebrows over left eye, left leg, left foot joint and also lost three top teeth in the front of mouth. PW1 has further deposed that due to the said accident he feels faint frequently and his eyesight has also deteriorated. His face also looks ugly because of the loss of his front teeth and his speech has become slurred. PW1 has further said that he is unable to do any work. At the time of accident, his age was 22 years and he was engaged in construction of pandals and earning a sum of Rs.5000/- per month. Hence, he had claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. He has further deposed that he has a valid driving licence. He accepts that he has not filed any documents to prove his income. 9. PW1 was cross examined. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has a valid driving licence. Further, he denied the allegations levelled against him by the driver of the bus, who had stated that he was in a drunken condition and driven the motor cycle in a zig zag manner. He also stated that he is a pandal formation worker. 10. On the side of the claimant, one doctor Balachandran, PW2 was examined. He has stated that he is running a private clinic; that on 011. 2003, the claimant had met him to get disability certificate regarding the losing of three teeth in his upper jaw due to the accident which had happened on 13.02.2003. PW2, further stated that he had verified the medical records of the claimant and physically verified the upper jaw of the injured claimant; he had found that in the upper jaw of PW1, PW1 has lost two teeth on the right side and 1 tooth on the left side. Due to this, he has certified that PW1 would find it difficult to eat and chew food also that due to this his face appearance has become ugly and further his speech has become slurred. Due to this, he has certified that PW1 would find it difficult to eat and chew food also that due to this his face appearance has become ugly and further his speech has become slurred. So, artificial teeth has to be fixed and the same has to be changed every year. So, the doctor PW2 has fixed the disability for loss of three teeth as 9%; for ugliness of face disability was fixed at 5% and for slur in speech, disability was fixed at 5%; in total 19% disability was fixed. 11. In the cross examination, PW2, doctor, stated that the claimant had fixed the artificial teeth. Due to the fixation of artificial teeth, there is only very little improvement in facial features and the speaking capacity has also been reduced. 12. PW3, another doctor, V. Sundar was also examined. He is a Neurologist working in the Thanjavur Government Hospital. He examined PW1 claimant and his medical sheet history. On 19.02.2001, he was admitted in the Thanjavur Government Hospital as inpatient, when X-ray and CT Scan were taken on his head, the scan and X-ray had shown that the left side head of the bone has been fractured. Due to the accident, haemorrage of blood had happened in the head, which was set right and the bone in that area was removed. Due to this accident, PW1 has loss of memory and abnormal mentality. As such, the disability sustained by PW1 was fixed at 50%. This certificate was marked as Ex.P1. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he verified the medical history of the claimant along with his medical sheet which are available in the hospital. Further, he has given his medical opinion that the bone which was fractured in the head was removed and the same cannot be set right. PW1 was also readmitted in the hospital due to fits. Further PW1 is undergoing treatment as out patient. 13. On the side of the respondent, one driver Ganesan was examined as RW1. He stated that the actual driver of the bus involved in the accident was on leave and so he was asked to give evidence. The said Ganesan stated that on 13.02.2001, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-49-N-0025 was taken by its driver at 2.05 hours from Thiruthuraipoondi to Mannargudi. He stated that the actual driver of the bus involved in the accident was on leave and so he was asked to give evidence. The said Ganesan stated that on 13.02.2001, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-49-N-0025 was taken by its driver at 2.05 hours from Thiruthuraipoondi to Mannargudi. When the bus was nearing Rettaipuli bus stop, the claimant driving a motor cycle came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner. On seeing this, the bus driver had stopped the bus, but in spite of this the claimant came fast and dashed against the bus. At the time of incident, the said RW1 was travelling in the same bus. 14. After considering evidence of both the sides and documents marked on the side of the claimant, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that it was due to the respondents bus drivers rash and negligent driving, the accident happened. This was confirmed on the basis of First Information Report, sketch and evidence of the claimant and respondent. Following this conclusion, the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal has decided to grant compensation to the claimant against the respondent, who is the owner of the bus. The compensation was awarded on the basis of one Dr. Balachandars disability certificate and evidence of another Dr. Sundars evidence and disability certificate and photograph of the claimant. Also the CT scan, X-ray and ECG were verified. Then, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the claimant had sustained grievous injuries. So, the Tribunal decided to grant compensation of Rs.40,000/-as one lump sum towards pain and suffering and medical expenses only. The Tribunal further ordered that the compensation amount shall be deposited by the respondent together with 9% interest per annum from the date of complaint till date of payment of compensation. Out of this compensation amount of Rs.25,000/-has to be deposited in a nationalised bank for a period of three years and that the claimant is permitted to withdraw the interest once in three months from the bank. The tribunal further directed the claimant is entitled to get the balance of Court fee. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant, in his appeal, argued that the award amount granted by the Tribunal is very low. The Tribunal had failed to consider the photo of the claimant, wound certificate and disability certificates etc., 16. The tribunal further directed the claimant is entitled to get the balance of Court fee. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant, in his appeal, argued that the award amount granted by the Tribunal is very low. The Tribunal had failed to consider the photo of the claimant, wound certificate and disability certificates etc., 16. Considering the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award of Rs.40,000/-granted as lumpsum amount, this Court is of the view that the award should have been granted with more clarity, showing the compensation award granted under various specific heads. As this has not been done by the Tribunal, it is not proper. Hence, this Court decides to grant compensation to the claimant as under; 1) For transport to the Hospital, Rs.10,000/-has been claimed by the claimant; this Court awards a sum of Rs.3,000/- under the said head; 2) For extra nourishment Rs.15,000/-has been claimed by the claimant; but this Court grants an award of Rs.3,000/- under the said head; 3) For damages to clothes and articles, Rs.3000/-has been claimed by the claimant; but this Court grants an award of Rs.1000/- under the said head; 4) For medical expenses, Rs.25,000/-has been claimed by the claimant; but this Court grants an award of Rs.5,000/- under the said head; 5) For pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-has been claimed by the claimant, but this Court grants an award of Rs.10,000/- under the said head; 6) For continuing permanent disability Rs.75,000/-has been claimed by claimant, but this Court after considering disability certificate issued by Dr. Balachandran, wherein he had stated that there is a disability of 19%, grants and award of Rs.28,500/- under the said disability percentage. Another doctor Sundar had issued a disability certificate showing 50% disability for loss of memory and abnormal mental condition and also that a fractured bone had been removed from the head of the claimant and that the same cannot be set right. Based on this disability, this Court decides to grant Rs.75,000/-for 50% disability. In total a sum of Rs.1,03,500/- is granted under the head of disability. 7. Based on this disability, this Court decides to grant Rs.75,000/-for 50% disability. In total a sum of Rs.1,03,500/- is granted under the head of disability. 7. In total a sum of Rs.1,25,500/-(Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand five hundred only) is granted as compensation to the claimant together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum payable by the respondent corporation from the date of claim till the date of payment of compensation, into the credit of MCOP No.274 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Nagapattinam, within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If the respondent Corporation has already paid any compensation amount as per the Tribunal order, that amount can be deducted and the balance amount with interest should be deposited in the Court. As the said accident happened in the year 2001, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the balance compensation amount by filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law. Resultantly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in above terms and consequently, the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principle District Court, Nagapattinam in M.C.O.P.No.274 of 2002 is modified. The parties are directed to bear their own cost in this appeal.