Judgment :- The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/ second respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 19.06.2003, made in M.C.O.P.No.910 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.III, Coimbatore, awarding a compensation of Rs.27,000/-with 9% interest from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of the compensation. 2.Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/second respondent, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., has filed the above appeal to set aside the award. It has been contended in the appeal that apportionment of contributory negligence has not been done in a proper manner by the Tribunal and in this regard, a Judgement reported in 2003 IMLJ P489has also been cited. Further, it has been submitted that the real cause of the accident was the travelling of three persons in the TVS-50 Moped, which is contrary to the Motor Vehicles Act. Further, the award granted under various heads are highly excessive and hence has prayed for reconsideration according to law. 3.The short facts of the case are as follows: On 012. 2000, at 9.30 a.m. the petitioners friend Leelakrishnan and Ragupathy were taking the petitioner, who was sick, to the Doctor at Ramanathapuram in TVS-50, bearing registration No.TN37 R5074 and when they were proceeding from east to west on Trichy road in front of Shanthi Precision Industries Ltd., Singanallur, the bus bearing registration No.TN38 N0211, which was coming in the opposite direction in a rash and negligence manner dashed against the petitioners vehicle and all of them fell down and sustained severe injuries and fractures. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was admitted in KG Hospital, Arts College Road, Coimbatore, wherein he was treated inpatient from 012. 2000 to 12. 2000 and is still continuing his treatment as out-patient from 112. 2000 onwards. 4.The petitioner was aged about 32 years at the time of the accident and was employed as a Simplex Machine Tender in Vishnu Lakshmi Mill (P) Ltd., Sulur, Coimbatore and drawing a salary of Rs.4,190/- per month. Due to the accident, the petitioner could not move his right had freely and is often experiencing unbearable pain. The petitioner is unmarried and his marriage prospect is very much affected and could not work as before. Due to the accident, the petitioner could not move his right had freely and is often experiencing unbearable pain. The petitioner is unmarried and his marriage prospect is very much affected and could not work as before. 5.The first respondent is the driver of the TNSTC Bus bearing registration No.TN38 N0211 and the second respondent is the Managing Director of the TNSTC and hence the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment of compensation, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6.In the said accident, a criminal case has been filed by the Traffic Investigation Wing (East) Police against the first respondent, in Crime No.423/2000, under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. 7.The second respondent in his Counter has rebutted the claim stating that the non-impleading of rider, owner and insurer of the moped bearing registration No.TN37 R5074 renders the claim non-maintainable. It was further stated that on 012. 2000, the second respondents driver took the bus bearing registration No.TN38 N0211 at 9.09 p.m. from Coimbatore and was proceeding towards Tiruppur following Traffic rules and regulations with due care and caution. At about 9.30 p.m. when the bus was nearing Radharani Theatre, the driver of the bus saw a moped rider with two pillion riders coming in a rash and negligent manner by overtaking one Tempo Van and came to the middle of the road and dashed against the bus and fell down. Immediately, they were taken to the K.G.Hospital and first aid was given to them. It was submitted that the moped rider by having two pillion riders is alone responsible for the accident. Further, it has been alleged by the respondents driver that the driver and pillion riders of the TVS-50 moped had consumed alcohol and that when they overtook the tempo van, they could not control the speed and hence had dashed against the bus. As such, the moped driver and pillion riders were responsible for the accident. Further, the respondent has not admitted the petitioners age, income, occupation, alleged injuries and disablement suffered and has submitted that all these should be proved before the Tribunal by means of documentary evidence. As such, the moped driver and pillion riders were responsible for the accident. Further, the respondent has not admitted the petitioners age, income, occupation, alleged injuries and disablement suffered and has submitted that all these should be proved before the Tribunal by means of documentary evidence. Further, it was submitted that the claim of the petitioner under various heads are excessive and were not admitted. 8. TheMotor Accident Claims Tribunal framed four issues for the consideration namely: (i) Whether the cause of the accident was the negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No.TN38 N0211 by the first respondent or the negligent riding of the TVS Moped bearing registration No.TN37 R5074? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation? (iii) If so, what is the quantum of compensation that the petitioner is entitled to? And to what other relief? (iv) Who is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner? 9.On the side of the petitioner, the rider of the TVS Moped was examined as PW1, the petitioner was examined as PW2 and seventeen documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P17. On the respondents side, the first respondent was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked. 10.The PW1, in his evidence has deposed that on 012. 2000, at about 09.30 p.m. he along with the petitioner and Leelakrishnan were riding in a Motorcycle TVS-50, bearing registration No.TN37 R5074, on the Trichy Road from east to west and while they were nearing Santhi Industries, the bus bearing registration No.TN38 N0211 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle and thus the accident had happened. Ex.P1 – the First Information Report shows that the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent is the cause for the accident. Ex.P2 – the Final Report laid under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. also reveals that after a full fledged investigation, the Investigating Officer, who made the investigation came to a conclusion that the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the first respondent is the cause for the accident and accordingly the final report was held as against the first respondent. 11.The RW1, the first respondent, in his evidence has deposed that on 012. 11.The RW1, the first respondent, in his evidence has deposed that on 012. 2000, at about 9.00 p.m. while he was driving the bus from Kovai to Tiruppur, and when he was nearing Santhi Industries, three persons, who were riding the TVS-50 were in the process of overtaking a Van, in a rash and negligent manner and had dashed against the bus and caused the accident. Further, it was contended on the side of the second respondent that as the TVS-50 was carrying three persons at the time of the accident, the rider viz. PW1 lost control of the vehicle and thereby he dashed against the bus and invited the accident. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the Motor Cycle and any other two wheeler was meant only for two persons, namely the rider and a pillion rider. If, more than two persons are travelling in a motorcycle or any other two wheeler, undoubtedly, such action of the individual would become illegal and unauthorised. Further, the Tribunal considered the ruling of the Judgment in 2003(1) MLG, Page 489, High Court of Madras, wherein it was held that the conduct of the persons, who travelled in such a manner are liable to be held for contributory negligence, especially when their action is contrary to the statute. 12.But, a reading of Ex.P3, Rough Sketch, reveals that the bus travelled away from the middle of the road, ie. the right side of the road and thereby the accident had happened. On the right had side of the road with respect to the bus. As such, the Tribunal on considering the fact that the accident had happened on the right hand side of the road with regard to the bus and also on considering the fact that three persons were travelling in the TVS-50, which was against established legal dictum, held that both the driver of the bus and the rider of the two wheeler had been negligent and fixed 75% contributory negligence on the driver of the bus and 25% contributory negligence on the rider of TVS-50 for the cause of the accident. 13.The PW2, in his evidence has deposed that in the said accident, the petitioner sustained a fracture on his right shoulder and immediately after the accident, he was removed to K.G.Hospital and there he had taken treatment for a period of four days as in-patient. 13.The PW2, in his evidence has deposed that in the said accident, the petitioner sustained a fracture on his right shoulder and immediately after the accident, he was removed to K.G.Hospital and there he had taken treatment for a period of four days as in-patient. Ex.P12 – Wound Certificate, reveals that the PW2 had sustained a fracture greated tuberosity of right tumerous. On further scrutiny of this, it is seen that the petitioner had taken treatment for a period from 012. 2000 to 12. 2000 at K.G.Hospital. Further, the Tribunal on considering that the petitioner would have suffered immense pain and suffering during the period of treatment, and also considering the nature of injuries, granted a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering for the injury sustained by the petitioner. Further, the Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.5,880/- towards medical expenses as per Ex.P13 – Medical Bills. The Tribunal, on consideration of Exs.P12 and P15, Discharge Summary had come to a conclusion that the petitioner had taken treatment for a period of four days as in-patient and consequently would have been restrained from his daily avocation for at least a period of one month. Ex.P14 – Salary Slip reads that the petitioner was drawing a sum of Rs.4,192.54 at the time of the accident, from Vishnu Lakshmi Mills (P) Ltd., As such, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.4,150/- towards loss of earning for a period of one month, to the petitioner. 14.Further, the Tribunal granted an award of Rs.970/- towards expenses incurred for transport to Hospital, extra nourishment and damages to clothing, though no evidence was adduced, either oral or documentary, as the Tribunal felt that incidental expenses such as those are likely to occur in such an accident. In total, the Tribunal granted an award of Rs.36,000/- as compensation to the petitioner and as the negligence laid as against the first respondent was only 75% held that the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.36,000/- X ¾ = Rs.27,000/-. 15.The Tribunal further directed that the above said award granted to the petitioner should be deposited by the respondents, within a period of one month from the date of its Order, in any one of the Nationalised Bank at Coimbatore for a period of three years and the accrued interest there from will be paid to the petitioner once in three months, by the Bank, directly. Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.1,100/-. 16.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the award granted by the Tribunal was erroneous. The claimant and other two persons travelled on the TVS-50 and so the rider of the TVS50 lost control of the vehicle and had dashed against the bus and caused the accident. 17.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that only 75% negligence was attributed to the driver of the appellant bus and as such only Rs.27,000/- was awarded, which is a meagre amount. The claimant had been hospitalised for four days and had taken treatment in a private hospital. He had also sustained three injuries. So, the learned counsel for the respondents had prayed for enhanced compensation. 18.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, grounds of the appeal findings of the Tribunal and arguments advanced by the counsels for their respective parties, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal had found 75% negligence on the part of the appellant bus driver and 25% negligence on the part of the pillion rider. On the basis of this finding, the compensation was calculated as Rs.27,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment. This Court considers that the said award, considering the circumstances, is fair and equitable. 19.The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that as three persons had travelled in the TVS-50, they had violated traffic rules and hence are not eligible for compensation. This Court is of the view that though the petitioners had violated traffic rules the appellant Corporation bus driver has also been negligent, as per the finding before the Tribunal and hence he cannot escape from his liability. The amount paid by the appellant Corporation is only for the injuries caused to the petitioner due to the negligence of the bus driver, which had been fixed as 75%. So, the award passed by the Tribunal against the appellant Corporation is fair and equitable. 20.This Court directed the appellant Corporation on 04.02.2005 to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest and costs into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.910 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.III, Coimbatore. The petitioner was permitted to withdraw 50% of the award amount. 20.This Court directed the appellant Corporation on 04.02.2005 to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest and costs into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.910 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.III, Coimbatore. The petitioner was permitted to withdraw 50% of the award amount. As the accident happened in the year 2001, it is open to the respondent/claimant to withdraw the rest of the compensation amount with accrued interest, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.910 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.III, Coimbatore, by filing necessary payment out application, in accordance with law. 21.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.III, Coimbatore, in M.C.O.P.No.910 of 2001 is confirmed. No costs.