Judgment :- The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/third respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 06.08.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.635 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.II, Additional District Court, Salem, awarding a compensation of Rs.50,200/- with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/third respondent has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner was travelling in the bus bearing registration No.TN29 N1063 along with his family members, when the said bus was nearing Mettur Pirivu road, the driver of the bus overtook a lorry, which was going in front of the bus and dashed against the lorry. In the impact, the petitioner sustained injuries on his stomach, chest, on the hip, contusion on upper arms, injury on angle and multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was rushed to the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri for treatment. 4. Regarding the said, a case was registered in Crime No.326/2000 by the Krishnagiri Police Station, under Sections 379, 337, 338 and 304(A) of I.P.C. 5. The said accident, in which two vehicles were involved, hence the claimant had filed a petition for compensation against the owner of the lorry, the Insurance Company and also the State Transport Corporation Ltd., since the bus belongs to the said Corporation. The claim amount, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. At the time of accident, the petitioners age was 27 years and he was involved in agricultural operations. The claimant further submitted that he also took treatment at the hospital in Dharmapuri. For the said accident, the second respondent ie.the owner of the lorry and the third respondent, the insurer of the lorry and State Transport Corporation are responsible for the said accident. As such, all the three respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 6. The third respondent/the Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent admitted the accident, which had happened on 19.02.2000. Further, the Insurance Company admitted that the lorry bearing registration No.MDB3007 had been insured by the respondent. 6. The third respondent/the Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent admitted the accident, which had happened on 19.02.2000. Further, the Insurance Company admitted that the lorry bearing registration No.MDB3007 had been insured by the respondent. The driver of the lorry had driven the lorry with minimum speed. At the back side of the lorry there were danger lights and also a red flag and red light that was fixed at the top of eucalyptus logs. All the danger lights were put on. Apart from that the directional indicating lamp was also intact. But, the driver of the bus had driven his vehicle very rashly and negligently, without sounding the horn and without signalling by switching the dim and dipper lights, came behind the lorry at a high speed and galloping at the same speed and remmed into the back side of the lorry, hence, there is no fault on the part of the lorry driver. As such, the respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 7. Without prejudice to the above contents, the third respondent submits that the age, occupation and income of the petitioner of his permanent disability are denied. Further, the petitioner has not sustained grievious injuries, actually he sustained simple injuries and recovered completely and performing his normal work. The claim amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is excessive. The claim petition is not maintainable and prayed for its dismissal. 8. The first respondent/State Transport Corporation has filed a counter statement and opposed the claim petition, stating that the claimants age, occupation, manner of accident, nature of injuries, mode of medical treatment and permanent disability are denied. The driver of the bus had driven the vehicle in a cautious manner towards Dharmapuri, while the bus was nearing Krishnagiri, the lorry proceeded in front of the bus with eucalyptus logs, these logs were projecting outside the body of the lorry. When the bus tried to overtake the lorry, the lorry driver had driven his vehicle towards left side of the diversion road without signalling, when the projecting logs hit against the bus, resulting in the accident that occurred. As such, the first respondent is not liable to pay compensation. 9. When the bus tried to overtake the lorry, the lorry driver had driven his vehicle towards left side of the diversion road without signalling, when the projecting logs hit against the bus, resulting in the accident that occurred. As such, the first respondent is not liable to pay compensation. 9. The third respondent stated in his counter that there was a criminal case registered against the driver of the bus and he was fined by the learned Additional District Judge- III. 10. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for the consideration namely: (i) Who was responsible for the accident? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation? (iii) What relief is the petitioner entitled to? 11. On the petitioners side two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and six documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6 namely Ex.P1-FIR, Ex.P2-Wound Certificate, Ex.P3-Medical Bill series, Ex.P4-Medical Receipts, Ex.P5-Disability Certificate and Ex.P6-Xray. On the side of the first respondent one witness was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked. Further, on the side of the third respondents two witnesses were examined as RW2 and RW3 and three documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R3. 12. The PW1 adduced evidence that on 19.02.2000 at about 7.45 p.m. he was travelling in a bus and seated behind the driver of the bus. The driver of the bus had driven the bus at high speed and dashed against the lorry, which was loaded with logs, which were projecting. After the impact, the logs penetrated inside the bus, with the result the petitioner sustained bone fracture injuries. To prove the accident and the nature of injuries, Exs.P1 and P2 were marked. On the side of the first respondent/Transport Corporation, the driver of the bus was examined as RW1. He adduced evidence that the bus was proceeding from Krishnagiri towards Dharmapuri, when at about 7.45 p.m. the bus was nearing Krishnagiri Milk Dairy, when the lorry bearing registration No.MDB3007 was proceeding in front of the bus with long protruding eucalyptus logs outside the lorry, without cautionary lights, whilst so, the lorry and the bus had stopped, when the lorry driver attempted to overtake the bus while the bus was proceeding, when suddenly without signalling the lorry driver turned the lorry to the left side, when the logs of wood penetrated into the bus, as such the accident had occurred. The same was reported to the concerned Police Station by the driver of the bus. 13. The RW2 adduced evidence that the driver of the lorry was not responsible for the said accident. The RW1 was marked as Insurance Policy, RW2 and RW3 were findings of the criminal proceedings, which were against the RW1. Further, the RW2 adduced evidence that the claimant had not produced a valid travelling ticket and his name was not placed in the FIR. The RW3 adduced evidence that the bus driver had driven the vehicle in a high speed and tried to overtake the lorry when the accident happened, on the backside of the lorry the red lights were put on. In the said accident the lorry had turned turtle. 14. Due to this accident, the driver of the bus was suspended by his employer and stopped two increments from his salary. The Tribunal considering the evidence from both drivers of the bus and lorry have come to the conclusion that there was rash and negligent driving on both sides. 15. The petitioner had adduced evidence that in the said accident, his two legs had fractured, left side shoulder sustained injuries, left side rib bone had fractured. Immediately, he was rushed to the Government Hospital at Krishnagiri. Further, the petitioner has also been treated by our Dr.Muthu. Towards medical expenses, the petitioner had spent a sum of Rs.50,000/-. At the time of accident he was 27 years of age. The claimant was an agricultural coolie and was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month. After the accident, he unable to do his normal work. He marked Ex.P3, medical bill series and Ex.P4, medical receipts. It is seen that the petitioner has spent a sum of Rs.5,193/- towards medical expenses. 16. The PW2, one Dr.Muthu Swamy had adduced evidence that he had examined the petitioner on 20.04.2004, after taking an Xray, the claimants right side rib bone had fractured. As such, he is suffering chest pain and during times of cough and cold, the pain is accentuated. The Doctor certified the claimant having 10% disability. Supporting his evidence he marked Ex.P5-Disability Certificate and Ex.P6-Xray. 17. Considering the oral evidence of the parties and documentary evidence from both sides, the Tribunal awarded a compensation as follows: 1. For permanent disability, a sum of Rs.15,000/-, 2. The Doctor certified the claimant having 10% disability. Supporting his evidence he marked Ex.P5-Disability Certificate and Ex.P6-Xray. 17. Considering the oral evidence of the parties and documentary evidence from both sides, the Tribunal awarded a compensation as follows: 1. For permanent disability, a sum of Rs.15,000/-, 2. For pain and suffering, transport expenses and loss of earning, a sum of Rs.30,000/-. 3. For medical expenses, a sum of Rs.5,200/-, In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,200/-as compensation to the petitioner and the Tribunal directed the respondents that the first respondent is liable to pay half of the award amount with accrued interest at the rate of 9% per annum, while the second and third respondents are liable to pay the remaining half of the award amount to the claimant. The Tribunal further ordered that the respondents to deposit the compensation amount including interest within a period of one month. After such deposit has been made, the said amount is to be deposited in a nationalised bank for a period of three years. After such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the interest once in six months directly from the bank. The Advocate fees fixed as per norms. 18. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the compensation amount of Rs.50,200/- is highly excessive. The accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The Tribunal fastening 50% of the award amount against the owner and insurer of the lorry. In the absence of the pleading and any evidence available under record. The lorry going ahead and while so, the bus hit behind the lorry. As such, the owner of the lorry and the insurance company are not liable to pay compensation. 19. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent argued that the even though FIR against the driver of the bus, the accident happened due to the negligence of the lorry driver. The quantum of compensation is on the higher side awarded to the claimant, who sustained simple injuries in the said accident. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent argued that the claimant was 27 years at the time of accident and was an agricultural coolie. He sustained six injuries, in the said accident. The claim amount was Rs.1,50,000/-, but the award amount granted by the Tribunal a sum of Rs.50,200/-, which is on the lower side. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent argued that the claimant was 27 years at the time of accident and was an agricultural coolie. He sustained six injuries, in the said accident. The claim amount was Rs.1,50,000/-, but the award amount granted by the Tribunal a sum of Rs.50,200/-, which is on the lower side. Considering the nature of injuries, age, income and mode of medical treatment. As such the appeal is not maintainable. 20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, scrutiny of findings of the Tribunal and arguments advanced by the leaned counsels appearing on either sides, this Court is of the view that as per evidence of the parties concerned, the negligence on both sides of the drivers involved. The lorry, which was loaded with eucalyptus logs, which were projecting out of the lorry, when all of a sudden, the lorry turned left resulting in the accident. Actually, the bus had not hit the lorry, but the projecting logs of wood penetrated the bus. So the liability fastened on both the drivers is appropriate. Considering the nature of injuries and age of the claimant, the compensation amount is found to be reasonable. As such, the Award and Decree, dated 06.08.2004, in M.C.O.P.No.635 of 2000, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.II, Additional District Court, Salem, is confirmed. 21. On 18.03.2005, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant that the appellant to deposit the compensation amount to the extent of their liability as awarded by the Tribunal, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.635 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.II, Additional District Court, Salem. 22. As the accident happened in the year 2000, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest, deposited into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.635 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.II, Additional District Court, Salem. 23. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Award and Decree, dated 06.08.2004, in M.C.O.P.No.635 of 2000, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.II, Additional District Court, Salem, is confirmed. There is no order as to costs.