Judgment The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 11. 2006, made in M.C.O.P.No.738 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Thiruvallur, awarding a compensation of Rs.85,000/- with 7.5% interest from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of the compensation. .2. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/3rd respondent, The Managing Director of .State Transport Corporation Ltd., has filed the above appeal to set aside the award. .3. The short facts of the case are as follows: .On 25.09.2003, at about 24.00 hrs, when the petitioner was proceeding in his bicycle, slowly and cautiously on the GST Road and when he was opposite to Lakshmi Theatre at Pallavaram, and travelling from west to east, the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN07 N9311, driven in a rash and negligent manner, at a highspeed and travelling from north to south, dashed against the petitioners cycle. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injury namely, left shoulder fracture injuries on left ear, cut injury on right eye and right hip injuries. The petitioner initially took treatment at Chrompet General Hospital on 25.09.2003 and later was admitted in G.H.Chennai and took treatment from 011. 2003 to 211. 2003. The petitioner was a Building Plumber, aged about 21 years and earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. As a result of the injuries sustained, the petitioner is not able to bend or lift any weight and unable to do plumbing work like before. The petitioner has therefore, claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the petitioner till the date of realisation, from the respondent, the owner of the said bus bearing registration No.TN07 N9311. 4. The Pallavaram Police Station has registered a criminal case regarding the accident in Crime No.913/2003 under Sections 270 and 338 I.P.C. .5. The respondent in his Counter has denied the age, income and occupation of the petitioner. Further, the treatment taken and disability of the petitioner has not been admitted. Further, the manner of the accident as alleged in the claim has been refuted. The respondent in his Counter has denied the age, income and occupation of the petitioner. Further, the treatment taken and disability of the petitioner has not been admitted. Further, the manner of the accident as alleged in the claim has been refuted. The respondent has stated that on the date of alleged accident, the respondents bus was proceeding near Pallavaram Lakshmi Theatre and at about 12 mid night, the petitioner crossed the road, unmindful of the traffic on the road, the trespassed into the lane of the respondents bus, ignoring the signals. On seeing this, the respondent bus driver drove his vehicle to his further left. In spite of this, the petitioner came and dashed against the respondents bus, fell down and sustained injury in his head. So, the petitioner has counted the accident, and there is no mistake on the part of the respondents bus driver. Further, the claim of the petitioner is excessive and baseless. .The respondent has therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely .(i) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? .(ii) Whether there was negligence on the part of the respondents bus driver? 7. On the petitioners side two witnesses were examined and five documents as Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. On the respondents side, the driver of the bus was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked. 8. The PW1, in his evidence has stated that on 25.09.2003, at 12 midnight, he as proceeding in his bicycle on GST Road, Pallavaram and while nearing Lakshmi Theatre, the State Express Transport Bus proceeding from Chennai to Tambaram, driven in a highspeed, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him. His friend also travelled as pillion rider in the cycle and sustained simple injuries. He sustained injuries on his left ear, right eyebrow and backside of the head. He took first aid at Chrompet Government Hospital and then took treatment as in-patient for 20 days at Government Hospital. After the accident, he often gets headache and giddiness. Ex.P1 is the copy of FIR; Ex.P2 is Sketch; Ex.P3 is Discharge Summary; PW2, the Orthopadecian, who was examined, has stated in his evidence that he had examined the petitioner on 20.01.2006 and has stated that the CT Scan reveals tempro tissue fracture and there has been Oedema of brain. After the accident, he often gets headache and giddiness. Ex.P1 is the copy of FIR; Ex.P2 is Sketch; Ex.P3 is Discharge Summary; PW2, the Orthopadecian, who was examined, has stated in his evidence that he had examined the petitioner on 20.01.2006 and has stated that the CT Scan reveals tempro tissue fracture and there has been Oedema of brain. He has been treated conservatively. He gets giddiness and head-ache often. There is also loss of memory. The action, of right hand fingers is reduced. He finds difficulty in doing work. Hence, PW2 has assessed the disability of the petitioner as 50% and has marked Ex.P4, Disability Certificate. .9. The driver of the bus on being examined as RW1 has stated that he had taken the bus at 11.30 p.m. at Chennai and proceeding towards Velankanni and that while nearing Pallavaram, a cyclist had suddenly crossed the road from right to left. To avoid hitting him, he had turned the bus towards left and the bus went into a ditch and stopped. But, the cyclist hit against the back of the bus and sustained abrasions. The bus was not sent for inspection. No departmental enquiry has been conducted and no action has been taken against him for the said accident. He has stated that the accident was caused due to negligence of the cyclist. 10. Ex.P1 is the copy of FIR, where the complaint has been given by one Solomon against the driver of Thiruvalluvar bus bearing registration No.TN07 N9311. Ex.P2 is the Sketch showing the place of occurrence. Ex.P3 is the Discharge Summary stating that the date of admission was 011. 2003 and the discharge was 211. 2003. From an inspection of Ex.P5, the Wound Certificate, it is seen that three lacerated injuries have been stated and referred to Government General Hospital. Apart from the above documents, the petitioner has not filed any continuous treatment records. Moreover, no medical bills or prescriptions have been filed to prove that he incurred any medical expenses. 11. Though RW1, the driver of the respondents bus has stated that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the petitioner, no investigation report has been filed to prove the same. It is stated that no departmental action has been taken against him. But to prove the same, no letter has been furnished stating that the action against him had been dropped. It is stated that no departmental action has been taken against him. But to prove the same, no letter has been furnished stating that the action against him had been dropped. Further, no Investigation Officer has been examined to prove the non-negligence on the part of the respondents bus driver. Hence, the Tribunal held that the respondent Corporation is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 12. The Tribunal, granted the petitioner a sum of Rs.25,000/-towards injuries; a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards treatment; a sum of Rs.35,000/-towards suffering and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards future medical expenses, if any. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.85,000/- as compensation to the petitioner and directed the respondent to deposit the said award with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.738 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Thiruvallur and that after such deposit it has to be invested in a Nationalised Bank for a period of three years. The Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.4,062/-. The excess Court fees was directed to be paid to the petitioner. .13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal had erred in fixing the negligence on the appellant driver, when it was the .claimant, coming in the bicycle, who had dashed against the bus as revealed in the deposition of RW1. Further, the assessment of 40% disability without Doctors evidence is not proper, more so, as the claimant had suffered only simple injuries. Further, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-for medical expenses and at the same time had granted a sum of Rs.25,000/-for injuries, which is not proper as the award for medical expenses is compensation for injuries sustained and so another award for injuries is not correct. 14. As such, the award of Rs.85,000/-granted by the Tribunal is not sustainable under law and warrants interference by this Court. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued that the claimant is a Building Plumber, aged about 21 years. Due to this accident, the prospects of getting married has been reduced for the petitioner. 14. As such, the award of Rs.85,000/-granted by the Tribunal is not sustainable under law and warrants interference by this Court. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued that the claimant is a Building Plumber, aged about 21 years. Due to this accident, the prospects of getting married has been reduced for the petitioner. Further, the Doctor also after examining the claimant had issued a Disability Certificate, wherein it has been stated that the disability sustained by the petitioner is 40%. After the accident, the claimant is unable to work as before. His right hand finger movements have been reduced. Further, the petitioner has loss of memory, giddiness and he is prove to headaches. He had been hospitalised for about 20 days as inpatient in the Government Hospital, Chennai. The learned counsel further argued that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is a reasonable one. 16. For the foregoing reasons and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for their respective parties, the Court is of the view that the Doctor, PW2 in his evidence has stated that the petitioner has Oedema of brain ie. excess of watery fluid has collected in the brain and is stagnant. As the complication has occurred in the brain, this Court is able to understand the distress suffered by the petitioner on this count. Further, the Court opines that as the brain controls the movements of body, it is a very vital organ. Hence, the Court does not want to interfere with the quantum of compensation as the amount awarded has been found to be reasonable. So, the Court decides to restructure the quantum of compensation as follows: 1) For 40% disability sustained by the petitioner award granted : Rs.60,000.00 2) For pain and suffering : Rs.15,000.00 3) For transport expenses : Rs. 4,000.00 4) For nutrition expenses : Rs. 5,000.00 5) For medical expenses : Rs. 1,000.00 Rs.85,000.00 In total, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to receive an award of Rs.85,000/- as under the above mentioned heads. As such, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal of Rs.85,000/-together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of compensation, is confirmed. 17. As such, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal of Rs.85,000/-together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of compensation, is confirmed. 17. At the time of admission, this Court imposed a condition that the appellant/State Transport Corporation to deposit the entire award amount together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the petition, till the date of compensation and costs, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.738 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Thiruvallur. 18. As the accident happened in the year 2003, it is open to the respondent/claimant to receive the entire compensation amount, lying into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.738 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Thiruvallur, by filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law. 19. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and consequently the award passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Thiruvallur, in M.C.O.P.No.738 of 2003 is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No costs.