Judgment The above civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant against the Judgment and Decree dated 312. 2003, made in M.C.O.P.No.1019/2002, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Tiruppattur (FTC), Vellore District, awarding a compensation of Rs.20,000/- with 6% simple interest from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of the compensation, as against a claim of Rs.1,00,000/- claimed in the petition. 2. The aggrieved appellant had prayed for enhancement of the award amount to Rs.1,00,000/- in the present appeal. .3. The short facts of case are as follows: .On 29.04.1998, at about 11.30 a.m. near Vallakoil on M.C.Road, the Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN 07 N 9294 was driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner towards Vellore from Ambur and dashed against the petitioner, who was standing on the extreme left side of the road. Due to the impact, the petitioner sustained fracture and multiple injuries. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was taken to Government Hospital, Ambur and admitted as inpatient. The petitioner was then taken to Government Pentland Hospital, Vellore and admitted as inpatient. As a result of the accident, the petitioner, who is a Hotel Worker, earning Rs.1,200/- per month, has lost his earning capacity. The petitioner has spent huge amount towards medical expenses. The petitioner has become permanently disabled and not able to walk or work. 4. A case under Sections 279 and 338 of I.P.C. has been registered against the driver of the bus in Crime No.173/1998 by Ambur Rural Police and the same is pending investigation. Since the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, in the course of employment under the respondent, the respondent/The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, who is the owner of the bus involved in the accident, is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him in the above said accident. 5. Hence, the petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as against the respondent with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of accident till the date of payment with costs as per Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. .6. The respondent in its counter has resisted the claim stating that the accident had not happened in the manner alleged in the claim petition. .6. The respondent in its counter has resisted the claim stating that the accident had not happened in the manner alleged in the claim petition. It was submitted that on 29.04.1988, the bus bearing registration No.TN 07/N9294 was proceeding towards Chennai. At about 12.10 hours the bus was proceeding near a place called Vellakoil near Ambur and at that time, the petitioner had suddenly attempted to cross the road from left side of the road to right side. The petitioner in his attempt to cross the road had not noticed the bus of this respondent and as a matter of fact, he never looked at the otherside of the road. The driver of the bus, immediately applied brakes and stopped the bus. In spite of the best efforts taken by the driver, the pedestrian came into contact with the rear left side of the bus and had fallen down. The crew members of the bus had taken the injured to Ambur General Hospital and also informed the facts to the Ambur Police Station. The Police have however not chosen to record the statement of the driver. The manner of the accident as stated supra makes it clear that the petitioner was totally responsible and had contributed to the accident violating the traffic rules. Further, the F.I.R. registered in Crime No.173/1998 by the Ambur Police based on the complaint by one Narasimhan is not maintainable as he is not an eyewitness to the accident. 7. Further, the respondent denied the nature of injuries sustained, period of treatment and the expenses incurred by the petitioner. The age, income and occupation of the petitioner was also not admitted. Further, the disability alleged in the claim was also not admitted. The claim was also excessive and disproportionate. As such, the respondent had prayed for dismissal of claim petition with costs. 8. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed three issues for consideration namely .(i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the alleged accident and was it due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondents corporation bus? .(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation as prayed for? (iii) To what relief? .9. To prove the first issue, the petitioner was examined as PW1 and also produced a copy of the F.I.R. as Ex.A1, the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report as Ex.A2, Charge Sheet as Ex.A3. .(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation as prayed for? (iii) To what relief? .9. To prove the first issue, the petitioner was examined as PW1 and also produced a copy of the F.I.R. as Ex.A1, the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report as Ex.A2, Charge Sheet as Ex.A3. In his evidence, the petitioner has deposed that the said accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus only. In the crossexamination by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, he deposed that the width of Tar road at the place of the accident is 35 feet and the width of the mud road on both sides is around 10 feet. The accident took place on the mud road. He denied the suggestion with regard to his negligence ie. the accident took place only due to the sudden crossing of the road by him. 10. The respondent in his counter did not deny the accident. Only the manner of accident was denied. In the counter, it has been contented that the said accident was only due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner himself as he suddenly crossed the road without looking at the oncoming bus. Hence, the burden is on the respondent to prove this fact. But, the respondent did not lead any oral evidence, nor produced any documentary evidence to substantiate this contention. On the other hand, the documents produced by the petitioner, Exs.A1, A2 and A3 establishes the fault on the part of the respondents corporation bus driver. Further, it has been elicited from the mouth of the petitioner by the respondents counsel that the width of the Tar road at the accident spot is 35 feet and that there was 10 feet of the mud road on either side of the road and that the accident took place on the mud road only. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal held that the said accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus only. .11. It is the case of the petitioner, that in the said accident, he sustained fracture and multiple injuries. He was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Ambur and from there he was referred to Vellore Government Hospital, wherein he took treatment as inpatient. .11. It is the case of the petitioner, that in the said accident, he sustained fracture and multiple injuries. He was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Ambur and from there he was referred to Vellore Government Hospital, wherein he took treatment as inpatient. In the oral evidence, he would state that he sustained grievous injury on his right leg and he was immediately taken to Ambur Government Hospital and from there he was taken to Vellore Government Hospital, wherein he took treatment as inpatient for a month. He could not do any work by using the right hand. The petitioner produced the certificates issued at Ambur Government Hospital and Vellore Government Hospital as Exs.A4 and A5. On the perusal of the same, it is seen that the petitioner sustained crushed injury of right upper arm, right shoulder and the injury is grievous in nature. Ex.A5 is the treatment certificate issued at Vellore Government Hospital, discloses that the petitioner was under continuous treatment in that hospital. The petitioner, at his tender age, had sustained this grievous injury and suffered a lot of pain. Hence, for pain and suffering a sum of Rs.10,000/-was awarded. Except for the oral evidence, the petitioner has not produced any other document regarding the treatment and other incidental expenses. The petitioner mainly took treatment in the Government Hospital. Considering this fact, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards medicine and treatment expenses. One Thiru.Neethinesan was examined as PW2 and he had issued the Disability Certificate as Ex.A6 and in the oral evidence, PW2 deposed that he examined the petitioner on 07.08.2002, in his private consultation room, and that before the examination he verified the Wound Certificate issued at Government Hospital, Ambur and Vellore. On examination, he found that absence of muscle in the right upper hand and due to that the muscles present there had stiffened. Hence, there is a disability on the upper right hand to the extent of 60% as far as that hand is concerned. 12. During the cross-examination, PW2 had admitted that he is not an Orthopaedic Surgeon and he did not treated the petitioner before that. He had not taken any X-rays at the time of issuing the certificates. He did not make any enquiries with the petitioner, whether the petitioner had taken any physiotherapy treatment. He admits that by Plastic Surgery, this disability can be cured. He had not taken any X-rays at the time of issuing the certificates. He did not make any enquiries with the petitioner, whether the petitioner had taken any physiotherapy treatment. He admits that by Plastic Surgery, this disability can be cured. He denied the suggestions that the disability percentage is enhanced. 13. The petitioner sustained the injuries in the accident that took place on 29.04.1998 and he was examined by PW2 only on 07.08.2002 after the lapse of more than four years. There is no evidence to show that the petitioner was in continuous treatment till such date for those injuries. It is not possible to presume that the disability was only due to the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident, as in the intervening period, he might have sustained some other injuries. Such being the view, even though the petitioner produced the Disability Certificate and examined the Doctor in this regard, the Tribunal was of the view that the petitioner failed to establish that he sustained permanent disability only due to those injuries in the said accident. Hence, the claim under this head was rejected. Hence, in all, the petitioner was awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- along with 6% simple interest from the date of the petition till the date of the deposit with costs. 14. Further, the respondent was directed to deposit the amount within a period of three months, failing which, the petitioner was entitled to 12% interest from that date. After deposit, the petitioner being minor, it was directed that the award should be put as a fixed deposit in any of the Nationalised Bank till the petitioner attains majority. 15. Excess Court fee paid was ordered to be refunded and Advocate fees was fixed as Rs.500/- 16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in his appeal has argued that the respondent/petitioner had first taken treatment in Government Hospital, Ambur and then in the Government Hospital, Vellore. He had taken treatment in Vellore for one month as inpatient. The expenses for the travelling, and the charges for assistance accompanying the patient were not at all considered. The Tribunal grossly erred in awarding only Rs.5,000/- for medical treatment. The Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount for extra nourishment as well as for permanent disability, even when the respondent/petitioner proved his disability. The expenses for the travelling, and the charges for assistance accompanying the patient were not at all considered. The Tribunal grossly erred in awarding only Rs.5,000/- for medical treatment. The Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount for extra nourishment as well as for permanent disability, even when the respondent/petitioner proved his disability. The Tribunal had further erred in awarding only 6% interest to the award amount. The learned counsel for the appellant had argued that taking into account all the above factors, the respondent/claimant is entitled to get an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 17. For the foregoing reasons and on consideration of the facts and the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the claimant is a Hotel worker and he sustained injuries in the said motor accident. The nature of injuries were crushed injury of right upper arm, right shoulder for which, he had taken treatment at Government Hospital, Vellore. In the claimants nature of work, he has to apply muscle power to do his day to day work. Now, he is unable to do the same. The claimant has claimed compensation: 1. Loss of earning : Rs.10,000/- 2. Transport : Rs. 2,000/- 3. Medical expenses : Rs. 8,000/- 4. Pain and Suffering : Rs.15,000/- 5. Permanent disability : Rs.40,000/- 6. Loss of earning power : Rs.25,000/- These compensation under the above heads was not considered by the Tribunal, as claimed by the claimant. 18. Hence, this Court, based on the facts of the case, is of the view that an enhancement of the said award is necessary. As such, the medical expenses of Rs.5,000/- is granted by this Court; for transport expenses an award of Rs.1,000/-is granted; for loss of earning Rs.6,000/- is granted; for pain and suffering Rs.25,000/-is granted; for disability sustained Rs.30,000/- is granted. 19. In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs.67,000/-together with interest at the rate of 7.5% for the additional compensation amount of Rs.47,000/-; from the date of filing the application till the date of payment, which is equitable, fair and payable by the State Transport Corporation/respondent. Further the Court directs the State Transport Corporation/respondent to pay the entire compensation amount with accrued interest, mentioned above, within a period of six weeks into the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1019 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruppathur, Vellore District. 20. Further the Court directs the State Transport Corporation/respondent to pay the entire compensation amount with accrued interest, mentioned above, within a period of six weeks into the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1019 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruppathur, Vellore District. 20. It is open to the appellant/claimant to receive the entire compensation amount lying to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1019 of 2002, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruppathur, Vellore District, by filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in the above terms and consequently, the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruppathur, Vellore District, in M.C.O.P.No.1019 of 2002 is modified. 21. The State Transport Corporation/respondent is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3,000/- additionally, along with the additional amount as costs.