Judgment :- The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 10.08.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.772 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri, awarding a compensation of Rs.4,75,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/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: On 24.03.2003, at about 15.00 hours, the petitioner was proceeding on his Bullet motorcycle, slowly, cautiously and observing all the rules of the road, with sounding horn keeping to the extreme left side of the road, near Oddanur at Ikontham Village, at that time the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration No.TN29 N0946, was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, without observing any rules of the road, without sounding horn and coming in an uncontrollable speed, in the opposite direction, suddenly his vehicle hit the petitioners vehicle and was thrown out at a distance from the impact and sustained grievious injuries, his motorcycle was also damaged completely in the said accident. The accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus. The Barugur Police has registered a case against the driver of the said bus in Crime No.124/2003, under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. 4. Immeidately, the petitioner was rushed to the Government Hospital at Krishnagiri. As his condition was serious, he was referred to St.Johns Hospital, at Bangalore and taken treatment for a period from 24.03.2003 to 14.04.2003 as inpatient. On 25.03.2003, the petitioner had undergone an operation for the segmental fracture on both leg bones, supra condylar fracture R.T. Femur, healed fracture shaft of Rt. Femur healed fracture (mel united) both bones Rt. Leg upper, 1/3rd of split skin graft on Rt. Leg for fasclotomy wounds done, DCS plating fixed for supra condylar fracture. The petitioner had spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical treatment. Due to this accident, the petitioner is unable to sit, squat, stand and uncomfortable while attending calls of nature. Femur healed fracture (mel united) both bones Rt. Leg upper, 1/3rd of split skin graft on Rt. Leg for fasclotomy wounds done, DCS plating fixed for supra condylar fracture. The petitioner had spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical treatment. Due to this accident, the petitioner is unable to sit, squat, stand and uncomfortable while attending calls of nature. He always requires one attendant for his day to day activities, as such, he has sustained permanent disability. Hence, the petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-against the respondent. 5. The respondent, in his counter, has resisted the averments of the claim petition. The respondent denies that the petitioner, involved in tiles and marbles laying work and as such was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. The age of the petitioner being 30 years was also denied. Nature of injuries and period of treatment are also denied. The petitioner had sustained only simple injuries. He has not sustained permanent disability as alleged by the petitioner. The respondent further denies that the Corporation bus driven by its driver at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against the petitioners motor cycle. The petitioner had no valid driving licence to drive the motorcycle. The petitioner rode his vehicle in a uncontrollable speed and hit the front right side of the bus due to the negligence of the rider and hence, the accident was caused. As such, the owner of the motorcycle and Insurance Company are necessary parties in the said claim petition. The petitioner had undergone treatment at the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri, as such the medical claim is false. Hence, the respondent prays to dismiss the claim petition. 6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely: (i) Who was the cause of the said accident? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 7. On the petitioners side two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and nine documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9 namely, Ex.P1–FIR; Ex.P2–Medical Discharge Summary; Ex.P3-Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report; Ex.P4-Charge Sheet; Ex.P5-Wound Certificate; Ex.P6-Medical Bill series; Ex.P7-Marble lay works bill series; Ex.P8-Taxi conveyance bill series and Ex.P9-Permanent Disability Certificate. On the respondents side one witness was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked. 8. The petitioner was examined as PW1. On the respondents side one witness was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked. 8. The petitioner was examined as PW1. The PW1, in his evidence, had adduced that on 24.03.2004, at about 03.00 p.m. he was proceeding from Krishnagiri to Adukodi on his motorcycle, when nearing Ottanur, the transport corporation bus on route No.22 came at a high speed from the opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result the petitioner was thrown out at over 5 feet distance from the impact. This accident was registered by the Police and the FIR was marked as Ex.P1. But, the complaint was given by the driver of the bus. The FIR disclosed that the corporation bus, driven by its driver by observing traffic rules, but the petitioner rode his vehicle at high speed, while driving his vehicle he was speaking on his cell phone. 9. The driver of the corporation bus was examined as RW1. The RW1 had adduced evidence that he was acquitted from the criminal proceedings, as such, he was not responsible for the said accident. After considering the evidence of the PW1 and RW1 and on perusal of the Ex.P1-FIR, the Tribunal had come to a conclusion that the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the corporation bus driver. As such, the respondent corporation is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 10. One Dr.Ashok Kumar was examined as PW2, in his evidence, he adduced that the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident on his left knee two bones were fractured, right thigh bone also fractured, for which the petitioner had undergone treatment at St.Johns Hospital at Bangalore. Steel plate also affixed to his thigh. The knee joint was constructed for normality but his movements are constricted upto 90 Degrees, besides the bone also got deformed. Left leg also got shortened by 1.5c.m. The result being the petitioner is unable to do his normal work ie. walk, stand and squat. The PW2 further adduced evidence that the petitioner sustained 60% disability. Further the PW2 certified that the steel plate already fixed on his right thigh has to be removed through another operation. 11. Considering the evidence of the PW1, PW2 and medical documents, the Tribunal had granted compensation to the petitioner as follows: 1. walk, stand and squat. The PW2 further adduced evidence that the petitioner sustained 60% disability. Further the PW2 certified that the steel plate already fixed on his right thigh has to be removed through another operation. 11. Considering the evidence of the PW1, PW2 and medical documents, the Tribunal had granted compensation to the petitioner as follows: 1. For grievious injuries, as per Disability Certificate assessing that the petitioner had sustained 60% disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, 2. For medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, 3. For future medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/-, 4. For transport expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-, 5. For loss of income, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-, 6. For nutrition, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-, 7. For loss of earning power, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/-, 8. For pain and suffering and shock, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, 8. For permanent disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/-, In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,75,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing the petition till the date of compensation and the Tribunal directed the respondent to deposit the compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of its Order into the Court. In turn, the award amount to be deposited in a nationalised bank for a period of three years. After such deposit has made, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the interest amount, once in six months directly from the bank. The Advocate fees fixed at Rs.11,750/-. 12. Challenging the award and decree passed by the Tribunal, the above appeal has been filed by the respondent/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation ltd., The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that Ex.P1-FIR, which was marked through the petitioner without examining the order of the document. No Police officer was examined. The learned counsel further argued that no documentary evidence produced for the income proof, age and occupation of the injured. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,75,000/- with 9% interest to the petitioner without material evidence on record. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-for grievious injuries, again the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- for permanent disability, which are not pertinent. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,75,000/- with 9% interest to the petitioner without material evidence on record. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-for grievious injuries, again the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- for permanent disability, which are not pertinent. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- for loss of earning power and Rs.5,000/-for loss of income, which are also not pertinent. The learned counsel vehemently argued that the compensation amount is excessive and has to be scaled down. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued that the petitioners age was 30 years at the time of accident. He was a self-employed person, doing Tiles and Marbles laying work. Through his occupation he was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/-per month. After the said accident, the petitioner is unable to do his normal occupation. Further, the petitioner spent huge amounts for his medical expenses. The petitioner was an inpatient for about 40 days at St.Johns Hospital at Bangalore, which is a multi specialty hospital, for which the petitioner spent huge amounts towards medical expenses. As per the PW2s evidence, the petitioner has to undergo another surgical operation for the removal of steel plate, which is already affixed to his thigh on the operated area. Due to the accident, the petitioner lost his earning power. Considering the Doctors evidence, mode of treatment and period of treatment, nature of injuries, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.4,75,000/- together with 9% interest, which is found to be fair and reasonable. There is no discrepancy in the said award granted by the Tribunal. As such, the above appeal has to be dismissed. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, scrutiny of findings of the Tribunal, arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that there is a discrepancy in the said award granted by the Tribunal. As such, this Court modifies the award as follows: 1. For disability, as per Ex.P9-Disability Certificate, assessing that the petitioner sustained 60% disability, this Court awards a compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-, 2. For future medical expenses, for removing steel plates, this Court confirms the award of Rs.60,000/-granted by the Tribunal, 3. For pain and suffering, this Court awards a a compensation of Rs.15,000/-, 4. For nutrition, this Court confirms the award of Rs.5,000/- granted by the Tribunal, 5. For future medical expenses, for removing steel plates, this Court confirms the award of Rs.60,000/-granted by the Tribunal, 3. For pain and suffering, this Court awards a a compensation of Rs.15,000/-, 4. For nutrition, this Court confirms the award of Rs.5,000/- granted by the Tribunal, 5. For transport expenses, this Court confirms the award of Rs.5,000/-granted by the Tribunal, 6. For attending charges ie. for the two months of hospitalisation of the petitioner, this Court awards a compensation of Rs.6,000/-, 7. For disability namely shortening of the right leg by 1.5 c.m. in ability to attend calls of nature, squat and other normal activities, which is a permanent discomfort, this Court awards a compensation of Rs.50,000/-, 8. For medical expenses, this Court confirms the award of Rs.1,00,000/- granted by the Tribunal, In total, this Court awards a compensation of Rs.3,61,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. 15. On 27.01.2005, this Court directed the appellant/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation to deposit 50% of the compensation amount, including proportionate interest and costs, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.772 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri, within a period of eight weeks. After such deposit has made, the claimant is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-and the balance amount has to be deposited in Indian bank at Krishnagiri. 16. Now, this Court directs the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.3,61,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.772 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, subject to deduction of earlier payment made by the appellant, as per this Court Order dated 27.01.2005. 17. As the accident happened in the year 2003, it is open to the respondent/claimant to withdraw the balance compensation amount, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.772 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri, after filing necessary payment out application, in accordance with law, subject to deductions of withdrawals of any earlier payment, as per this Court Order. 18. 18. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the Award and Decree, dated 10.08.2004, in M.C.O.P.No.772 of 2003, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri, is modified. There shall be no order as to costs.