JUDGMENT : S. Palanivelu, J. Challenging the award dated 11.1.2005, made in M.C.O.P. No. 383 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (First Additional Sub-Court), Madurai, the transport Corporation has preferred the present appeal. 2. In the claim petition, it is stated that on 6.2.2003, at about 8.30 p.m. while the claimant was travelling by bus belonging to the respondent Corporation to go to a company for attending interview at Trivandrum, he was sitting on the right side seat near the window. Since the bus driver was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner, it crossed the central median line and dashed against another vehicle which was coming from the opposite side. In the accident, he sustained severe crush injuries in his right hand. Immediately, he was removed to Kovilpatti Government Hospital, from where he was removed to the Government Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli, and took treatment for several months. His right hand was amputated. He was earning a sum of Rs. 10,000 by working as airconditioning and refrigeration mechanic in Swift Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd., Maldives, and he could not go to Maldives for continuing his job. Hence, a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 was prayed for as compensation. 3. In the counter filed by the respondent Corporation, it is alleged that the claimant has categorically stated before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kayathar Police Station, that a lorry coming from the opposite side damaged his hand and sped away. However, in order to get compensation, he says that he kept his hand inside the bus. In spite of the warnings given by the driver, conductor and other passengers on seeing the claimant sleeping with his hand stretched outside the bus, he invited the accident. He was also advised to change his seat, but it was ignored by him. He is responsible for the accident and there is no fault on the part of the bus driver. The bus driver was driving the bus cautiously. Hence, the compensation claimed is excessive. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed. 4. The learned Tribunal Judge, after considering the evidence on record, has anchored the entire liability upon the bus driver and directed the respondent to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,53,000 to the claimant. The appellant has come forward with this appeal challenging the quantum as fixed by the Tribunal that it is on the higher side. 4. The learned Tribunal Judge, after considering the evidence on record, has anchored the entire liability upon the bus driver and directed the respondent to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,53,000 to the claimant. The appellant has come forward with this appeal challenging the quantum as fixed by the Tribunal that it is on the higher side. The claimant in his turn has filed the cross-objection seeking for enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,47,000. 5. Mr. D. Sivaraman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, laboured hard to show that the contributory negligence lies on the part of the claimant. He draws attention of this court to the allegations in the first information report, of which the claimant himself is the author. In the first information report, he has stated that he was sleeping by stretching his hand outside the bus and that a mini-lorry came from the opposite direction, dashed against his hand and caused severe crush injury. 6. Mr. T. Selvakumaran, learned counsel appearing for the claimant, would submit that it is the duty of the bus crew to ensure the safety of the passengers and the manner of accident would show that they had not taken such precaution and that they have to be held liable for the accident. In support of his contention, he placed much reliance upon a Division Bench decision of the High Court of O. Mammachan Vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and Another, (1994) ACJ 1262, in which it is held as follows: It cannot be disputed that respondent No. 2 owes a duty of care for the safety of passengers travelling in the bus. He has a duty to see that the passengers do not receive any injuries during the course of the journey. To achieve this object he has to look out for any possible obstruction on the road and to take reasonable steps to avoid obstruction without causing any injury to the passengers. While overtaking a moving vehicle or crossing another vehicle, the driver has to leave sufficient space in order to see that there was no likelihood of the passengers' arms being injured. He should have foreseen the possibility of passengers resting their elbows on the window-sill. While overtaking a moving vehicle or crossing another vehicle, the driver has to leave sufficient space in order to see that there was no likelihood of the passengers' arms being injured. He should have foreseen the possibility of passengers resting their elbows on the window-sill. In the process of crossing or overtaking another bus, he must not only avoid contact with the body of the bus but also avoid the elbow of any passenger resting on the window-sill coming into contact with the oncoming bus or the bus which he is overtaking. Precautions are, therefore, to be taken by him to leave sufficient gap for preventing any mishap. 7. It is natural for a passenger to keep his hand on the window-sill while travelling in a vehicle. If the claimant in this case was found to be natural in his attitude at the time of travelling in the bus, then this court can fix the liability upon the driver. It is the duty of the driver to ensure that sufficient gap is left between his vehicle and other vehicle which happens to cross his vehicle from the opposite side. In this case, the driver has failed to leave sufficient space. There is no evidence in this regard. At the same time, the claimant has also contributed to the accident to some extent. Instead of keeping his hand inside the window, as per the allegations in the first information report, he had stretched his hand outside the bus, by means of which he sustained severe crush injury which led to amputation. In these circumstances, this court is of the considered view that a contributory negligence to the accident of 20 per cent could be attributed to the claimant. 8. Insofar as the compensation as quantified by Tribunal is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant is very much aggrieved. He would say that it has been established by production of evidence that the claimant is qualified mechanic in refrigeration and air-conditioning, for which he has obtained diploma in the concerned courses, that he was working in Swift Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. at Maldives and was getting a sum of Rs. 10,000 and that the Tribunal has miserably failed to award anything for loss of amenities and the loss of marriage prospects, etc. 9. Exh. 10,000 and that the Tribunal has miserably failed to award anything for loss of amenities and the loss of marriage prospects, etc. 9. Exh. P4 is the cash payment voucher issued by Swift Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd., Maldives, which shows that he drew a sum of Rs. 7,939 in Maldives currency on 30.1.2003. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant would say that it is equal to a sum of Rs. 10,000. Whatever may be, it has been stated that he was working in Maldives as air-conditioning and refrigeration mechanic and he should have earned a considerable amount. However, for the purpose of compensation to be awarded in a lump sum, this court fixes his monthly income at Rs. 4,500, thereby the annual loss of income is Rs. 54,000 from which after one-third is deducted towards his personal expenses, a sum of Rs. 36,000 could be taken for the purpose of compensation. If multiplier 15 is adopted, the loss of income would be a sum of Rs. 5,40,000. The doctor has stated that because of the amputation of his hand, he is suffering from permanent disability to the tune of 84 per cent. This court restricts the same to 80 per cent and hence, he is entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,32,000 under the head of permanent disability. 10. The following are the heads of compensation payable to the claimant: Permanent disability Rs. 4,32,000 Pain and suffering Loss of earnings during Rs. 30,000 treatment period Rs. 25.000 Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000 Transportation Rs. 10,000 Loss of amenities Rs. 30,000 Loss of marital prospects Rs. 1,00,000 Total Rs. 6,37,000 11. In the above said compensation of Rs. 6,37,000/-, 20 per cent of the amount, that is, Rs. 1,27,400 is to be deducted on account of his contributory negligence. Hence, a sum of Rs. 5,09,600 has to be made available to the claimant. In fine, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part and the cross-objection filed by the claimant is allowed making the total compensation at Rs. 5,09,600. The entire compensation shall be deposited along with 7.5 per cent interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit. No costs.