Judgment :- 1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent, against the Award and Decree, dated 12.12.2003, made in M.C.O.P.No.2831 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.II, Chennai, awarding a compensation amount of Rs.2,20,500/- 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 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.II, Chennai, in M.C.O.P.No.2831 of 1999, dated 12.12.2003, the appellant/respondent has filed the above appeal praying for scaling down of the compensation granted by the Tribunal. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 22.03.1999, at 11.10 a.m. when the petitioner was walking alone in Tambaram Bus stand for boarding a bus, the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN29 N0597, driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the petitioner and caused the accident. The petitioner sustained injuries in the accident and was taken to Government Hospital at Chrompet, wherein first aid was given. Subsequently, he had been referred to Government General Hospital, Chennai-3, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient from 22.03.1999. As a result of the injuries sustained, the petitioner is not able to stand and do any work. 4. As the accident has been caused by the rash and negligent manner of driving by the driver of the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN29 N0597, the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from the respondent together with interest and costs, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. Regarding the said accident, a criminal case has been registered at Tambaram Police Station, Chennai-600 056, in Crime No.253 of 1999. 6. The respondent, in his counter has resisted the claim denying the averments in the claim regarding the age, income, occupation of the petitioner, period of treatment and the manner of accident. The respondent has stated that on 22.03.1999, the bus bearing registration No.TN29 N0597, Route No.18H, started its trip at 11.00 hours at Tambaram and proceeded to Naduveerampattu. When the bus was stopped at 12.30 hours at Janaki Mahal bus stop, the petitioner tried to board the bus, but a lady pushed down the petitioner. The petitioner fell down and sustained simple injury. When the bus was stopped at 12.30 hours at Janaki Mahal bus stop, the petitioner tried to board the bus, but a lady pushed down the petitioner. The petitioner fell down and sustained simple injury. The respondent has submitted that the petitioner himself had stated in the FIR that the driver of the bus was not responsible for the accident. As such, it has been stated that the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the claim is excessive and has to be dismissed with costs. 7. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration namely; (i) Who is responsible for the accident? (ii)What is the quantum of compensation, which the petitioner is entitled to get? 8. On the side of the petitioners two witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW2 and seven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7. On the respondents side, two witnesses were examined as RW1 and RW2 and no documents were marked. 9. The petitioner was examined as PW1. The PW1 in his evidence deposed that on 22.03.1999, at about 11.00 a.m. when he was standing at the Naduvelpatti bus stop at Tambaram, the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN29 N0597 was stopped at the bus stand to facilitate passengers to board the bus. When the petitioner was in the process of boarding the bus, the conductor of the said bus blew the whistle. Consequently, the driver of the bus moved the bus forward and as a result of this, the petitioner fell down and the back tyre of the bus had run over his right leg, crushing the leg below the left knee completely. He had further stated that he had sustained injuries in his spinal cord also due to the fall. He had stated that he had been admitted in the Government General Hospital and received treatment, as an inpatient, from 23.03.1999 to 03.04.1999. In support of this contention, he had marked Ex.P1, the Discharge Summary issued at the Hospital. As he had been advised by the hospital Doctors that his leg has to be amputated, he had got himself discharged from the hospital. Subsequently, he had taken treatment at KMC Hospital from 08.04.1999 to 28.05.1999, as an inpatient. In support of this evidence, he had marked Ex.P2, the Discharge Summary issued at KMC Hospital. As he had been advised by the hospital Doctors that his leg has to be amputated, he had got himself discharged from the hospital. Subsequently, he had taken treatment at KMC Hospital from 08.04.1999 to 28.05.1999, as an inpatient. In support of this evidence, he had marked Ex.P2, the Discharge Summary issued at KMC Hospital. As his leg had been crushed, steel rods were fixed on the out side of his leg to assist him in his movements. He had deposed further that his injured leg, in spite of treatment, had not healed and that puss still oozes out from the affected portions of his leg. In support of his contention, he had marked Ex.P3, the Xrays and copies of photographs taken of his affected leg and Ex.P4, the Wound Certificate. He had stated that he had been able to walk only after a period of four years after the said accident had taken place and that too only with the aid of a walking stick. He had further deposed that prior to the accident, he had been an agriculturist and earning an income of Rs.30/- to Rs.49/- per day. 10. The driver of the respondents bus was examined as RW1. The RW1, in his evidence deposed that on 22.03.1999, at about 11 a.m. he had taken the trip of the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN29 N0597 at Tambaram and had driven the bus towards Naduveeranpatti. When he had stopped the bus at the bus stop at Aruna Janaki Mahal, a number of passengers jostled with each other and tried to board the bus. As a result of this, a lady, who had tried to board the bus, had pushed the petitioner and consequent to this the petitioner had fallen down. 11. The conductor of the bus was examined as RW2. The RW2 in his evidence had deposed that on 22.03.1999, at 11.00 a.m. he had taken the trip on the respondents bus; that he had been issuing tickets to the passengers on the bus, when the bus was stopped at the bust stop at Arununa Janaki Mahal; that number of persons had jostled with one another in their hurry to board the bus and that a lady had pushed the petitioner and consequent to this the petitioner had fallen down. 12. 12. The Tribunal on scrutiny of evidence of the RW1 and RW2, were not inclined to accept the evidence of the RW2 as there were a lot of contradictions made by him while giving evidence. The Tribunal was of the opinion tat RW2 and RW2 had adduced evidence regarding the manner of accident only to protect themselves and their employer. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Exs.P1, P3 and P5 were of the opinion that the evidence given by the PW1 has been proved through documentary evidence. Hence, the Tribunal held that the accident had been caused only due to the fault of the driver of the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN29 N0597. 13. The petitioner, G.Nathan, in his evidence and petition had stated that at the time of accident he had been working as an agriculturist and earning a monthly income of Rs.1,500/- to Rs.2,500/-. The Tribunal on scrutiny of evidence of PW1 and on considering that the petitioner had received treatment as an inpatient from 23.03.1999 to 03.04.1999 at Government General Hospital and also considering that he had received treatment as an inpatient at KMC Hospital from 08.04.1999 to 28.05.1999, wherein steel rods were fixed on the outside of his leg, as his leg had been crushed in the said accident, were of the view that the petitioners contention, that he had not been able to do any work from 22.03.1999 to 21.12.1999, was acceptable and accordingly granted an award of Rs.15,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of income. 14. The Tribunal, on considering that the petitioner had been received treatment at hospital continuously from the date of accident and also considering that the petitioners leg, which had been crushed in the accident had been fitted with steel rods held that the petitioner would not be able to walk and could have gone to the hospital only by car or auto. Accordingly, they awarded a compensation of Rs.2,000/-under the head of transport expenses and a compensation of Rs.10,000/-under the head of special transport expenses. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the petitioner under the head of nutrition and a sum of Rs.500/- as compensation under the head of damages to clothes. Though the petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.9,500/- under medical expenses, no medical bills had been marked to substantiate this claim. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the petitioner under the head of nutrition and a sum of Rs.500/- as compensation under the head of damages to clothes. Though the petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.9,500/- under medical expenses, no medical bills had been marked to substantiate this claim. However, the Tribunal, on considering that the petitioners left leg had been crushed in the accident and that he had taken treatment at the hospital, where steel rods had been fixed on the outside of his leg, awarded a compensation of Rs.5,000/- under the head of medical expenses. The Tribunal, on considering that steel rods had been fixed on the petitioners leg to facilitate movement and considering that the petitioner would have undergone pain and suffering due to this, awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. 15. The Tribunal further on considering that the petitioners family had also suffered a loss of income and agony due to this accident awarded a compensation of Rs.20,000/-under the head of mental agony. 16. The Tribunal, on considering that the petitioner has restricted movement of 80 Degrees only in his right knee and that there is no movement in the sole of his right leg as his muscles had been affected in the accident and also considering that his right leg had been shortened, awarded a compensation of Rs.8,000/-under the head of mental agony. 17. The Doctor, who had assessed the disability of the petitioner was examined as PW2. PW2, in his evidence, deposed that due to the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the said accident, two of his bones below the right knee had protruded out, after tearing the muscles and that he had sustained a skin loss of 10 cms. X 7 cms. PW2, in his evidence, deposed that due to the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the said accident, two of his bones below the right knee had protruded out, after tearing the muscles and that he had sustained a skin loss of 10 cms. X 7 cms. in this area; that steel rods had been fixed outside the affected portion to set the affected bones; that even after treatment, the bones have joined in an improper manner and consequent to this his right leg had become bent; that he would not be able to stand continuously; that the petitioner had sustained an injury of size 4" X 2", which has not healed yet; that puss is being secreted from this area; that the petitioner has restricted bending movement of only 80 Degrees in this leg; that he has no movements in the sole of this leg; that his leg has been shortened. The Doctor has assessed the disability sustained by the petitioner on this count as 55% and in support of his evidence, has marked the Disability Certificate as P5. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of evidence given by the Doctor and the disability assessed by him, awarded a compensation of Rs.60,000/-under the head of permanent disability. The Tribunal, further granted an award of Rs.70,000/- under the head of loss of earning capacity, after considering that the petitioner had not been able to do his work as an agriculturist. 18. In total, the Tribunal granted an award of Rs.2,20,500/-as compensation to the petitioner and directed the respondent to deposit the above said award together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.2831 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.II, Chennai, within a period of two months from the date of its order. After such deposit was made, the award was to be invested in Union Bank of India, Ashok Nagar Branch, Plot No.1209, 1st Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600 083, as fixed deposit, for a period of three years. The Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.7,410/-. 19. After such deposit was made, the award was to be invested in Union Bank of India, Ashok Nagar Branch, Plot No.1209, 1st Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600 083, as fixed deposit, for a period of three years. The Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.7,410/-. 19. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of RW1 and RW2, the driver and conductor of the appellant Corporation and the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the entire claim petition on the basis of available evidence on record. It has also been contended that the Tribunal ought to have fixed entire or atleast contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. It has also been contended that the Tribunal erred in relying upon Exs.P1, P2 and P4, the treatment records, which were marked through the claimant without examining the author of the documents. It has also been pointed out that the Tribunal erred in relying upon the evidence of PW2, the Doctor, who had not treated the claimant and Ex.P5, the Disability Certificate issued by him and the Tribunal ought to have rejected the evidence of PW2 and Ex.P5, Disability Certificate. It was also pointed out that no documentary evidence was produced to prove the age, occupation and income of the claimant. 20. It was also contended that the Tribunal after having awarding Rs.25,000/- under the head of pain and suffering erred in awarding Rs.8,000/-for mental agony and Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering to the family members. It was also contended that the Tribunal, after having awarded Rs.2,000/- for transport erred in awarding Rs.10,000/-for additional transport expenses without any basis. It was also contended that the award of Rs.70,000/- granted by the Tribunal for loss of earning capacity had not been supported by any documentary evidence. 21. As such, it has been contended that the award of Rs.2,20,500/- granted as compensation under various heads by the Tribunal is excessive. Hence, the learned counsel has prayed for scaling down of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 22. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued that the claimant was an inpatient at KMC Hospital from 08.04.1999 to 28.05.1999. The Doctor had assessed the disability of the claimant as 55%. Further, the learned counsel argued that the claimant had undergone surgical operation and steel rods had been fixed on the operated region. 22. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued that the claimant was an inpatient at KMC Hospital from 08.04.1999 to 28.05.1999. The Doctor had assessed the disability of the claimant as 55%. Further, the learned counsel argued that the claimant had undergone surgical operation and steel rods had been fixed on the operated region. Two bones were fractured in his right leg. The claimant has also sustained a skin tear of size 10 Cms. X 7 Cms. After the said accident, the claimant is unable to perform his avocation. After considering the nature of injuries, duration of treatment, mode of treatment, age of the claimant, occupation of the claimant, the Tribunal had awarded compensation and as such, this is a well-considered one. Hence, the appeal is not maintainable. 23. After going through the facts of the case, after hearing arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and after scrutinising the findings of the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that there is a slight discrepancy in the said award. Hence, this Court restructures the compensation awarded as follows: 1. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-as compensation under the head of loss of income. This Court confirms the same, as the claimant was an agricultural coolie and that after the accident, he is unable to do agricultural work due to bone fracture injuries. 2. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-towards transport expenses and had also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation under the same head ie.in total, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/-as compensation under this head. This Court reduces the award granted under the head of transport expenses to Rs.10,000/-. 3. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-under the head of nutrition. This Court enhances the award granted under the said head to Rs.10,000/-. 4. Further, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.500/- towards medical expenses and damages to clothes respectively. This Court confirms the award granted under the same head. 5. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-under the head of pain and suffering. This Court confirms the award granted under the said head. 6. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-as compensation under the head of mental agony undergone by the family members. The award under this head is not pertinent and hence this Court sets aside the award granted under this head. 7. This Court confirms the award granted under the said head. 6. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-as compensation under the head of mental agony undergone by the family members. The award under this head is not pertinent and hence this Court sets aside the award granted under this head. 7. Further, the Tribunal awarded a Rs.8,000/-under the head of mental agony suffered by the claimant. This Court sets aside the award granted under this head as this found not pertinent. 8. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/-under the head of loss of earning capacity. This Court sets aside the award granted under this head. 9. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/-under the head of permanent disability. This Court enhances the award granted under this head to Rs.1,10,000/-, since the claimant sustained 55% disability, which was assessed by the Doctor and considering the nature of injuries and surgical operation, wherein steel rods had been fixed and also considering that the claimant had sustained a skin tear injury of size 10 Cms. X 7 Cms. on his leg. 10. Further, the Court on considering the extent and nature of injuries sustained by the claimant wherein his normal life had been affected grants an award of Rs.20,000/-under the head of loss of pleasure of life. In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs.1,95,500/-as compensation to the claimant, 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. This Court has scaled down the award of Rs.2,20,500/- granted by the Tribunal to Rs.1,95,500/-. 24. On 24.01.2005, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant/State Transport Corporation to deposit the entire compensation amount including interest and costs, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.2831 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.II, Chennai. The same had been complied with by the appellant. 25. 24. On 24.01.2005, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant/State Transport Corporation to deposit the entire compensation amount including interest and costs, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.2831 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.II, Chennai. The same had been complied with by the appellant. 25. It is open to the claimant/respondent to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,95,500/- 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, as observed above by this Court, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.2831 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.II, Chennai, after filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law, subject to deduction of withdrawals if any made. Likewise, the appellant/State Transport Corporation is at liberty to withdraw the excess compensation amount with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.2831 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.II, Chennai. 26. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the Award and Decree, dated 12.12.2003, made in M.C.O.P.No.2831 of 1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.II, Chennai is modified. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to the costs.