Judgment :- 1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner, against the Award and Decree, dated 15.12.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.108 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Ranipet, Vellore, awarding a compensation amount of Rs.50,490/- 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, Subordinate Court, Ranipet, Vellore, in M.C.O.P.No.108 of 2003, dated 15.12.2004, the appellant/petitioner has filed the above appeal praying for enhanced compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 23.12.2002, when the petitioner, along with his wife, was travelling as a passenger in the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN23 N0931 from Vellore to Kathalampattu and when the bus was nearing Kannikoil near Kanniambadi, a bus bearing registration No.TN23 N1482, also belonging to the respondent, came in the opposite direction and dashed against the bus bearing registration No.TN23 N0931. Due to the impact, the petitioner sustained injuries in his spinal cord. Subsequent to this, the petitioner took treatment at C.M.C.Hospital at Vellore, wherein the petitioner underwent surgical treatment. 4. The petitioner was a fruit vendor and earning an income of Rs.5,000/- per month. The petitioner has sustained permanent disability due to the injuries caused in the said accident. 5. As the accident had been caused due to the negligence of the driver of the bus bearing registration No.TN23 N1482, the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. As such, the petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondent under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. Regarding the said accident, a criminal case has been registered at Vellore Taluk Police Station in Crime No.713 of 2002 as against the driver of the bus bearing registration No.TN23 N1482 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. 7. The respondent, in his counter has resisted the claim denying the averments in the claim regarding the age, income and occupation of the petitioner as well as the manner of accident. It has been stated that on 23.12.2002, the bus bearing registration No.TN23 N1482 was taken on its trip from Tiruvannamalai to Vellore. The respondent, in his counter has resisted the claim denying the averments in the claim regarding the age, income and occupation of the petitioner as well as the manner of accident. It has been stated that on 23.12.2002, the bus bearing registration No.TN23 N1482 was taken on its trip from Tiruvannamalai to Vellore. The driver of the bus had driven the bus in a careful manner and when the bus was nearing Kanikoil near Kaniambadi, a Tata Sumo van coming in the opposite direction and driven at a high speed by its driver had tried to overtake the bus bearing registration No.TN23 0831. The bus driver in order to allow the Tata Sumo van to go ahead, had applied brakes and slowed down the speed of the bus. But, the Tata Sumo van was stopped by applying brakes. Immediately after it passed the bus bearing registration No.TN23 0831 and was ahead of it. Consequently, the bus bearing registration No.TN23 N0931 coming in the opposite direction had dashed against the stationary bus. As such, the respondent has submitted that the driver of the bus had not been negligent and that the accident had been caused only due to the rash and negligent manner of driving by the driver of the Tata Sumo van. It was also stated that a passenger, Mr.B.Venkatraman, who had travelled in the respondents bus had also witnessed the said accident and that he is willing to give evidence as a witness, regarding the manner of the accident. The respondent has also submitted that the claim is excessive and has to be dismissed with costs. 8. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had framed three issues for consideration namely; (i) Whose negligence has resulted in the accident to happen? (ii)What is the quantum of compensation, which the petitioner is entitled to get? (iii)To what other relief is the petitioner entitled to receive? 9. On the side of the petitioners two witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW2 and ten documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P10. On the respondents side, one witness was examined and no documents were marked. 10. The petitioner was examined as PW1. (iii)To what other relief is the petitioner entitled to receive? 9. On the side of the petitioners two witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW2 and ten documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P10. On the respondents side, one witness was examined and no documents were marked. 10. The petitioner was examined as PW1. PW1, in his evidence adduced that he was travelling as a passenger in the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN23 N0931 from Vellore towards Katalampatti; that when the bus was nearing Kannikoil near Kaniambadi, a bus bearing registration No.TN23 N1482, coming in the opposite direction had collided with the bus, in which he had been travelling as a passenger and caused the accident. He has deposed that a criminal case had been registered by the Police as against the driver of the bus bearing registration No.TN23 N1482. In support of his evidence, PW1 has marked Ex.P1, the copy of the FIR; Ex.P2, the Discharge Summary issued at C.M.C.Hospital, Vellore; Ex.P3, Medical Bill series, totalling Rs.4,990/-issued at C.M.C.Hospital; Ex.P4, Wound Certificate issued at C.M.C.Hospital; Exs.P5 to P8, the documents to establish that he had been a fruit vendor. In his cross-examination, PW1 has adduced that the accident had been caused only due to the high speed at which the driver had driven the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN23 N1482. 11. The driver of the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN23 N1482 was examined as RW1. RW1, in his evidence deposed that on 23.12.2002, he had driven the bus bearing registration No.TN23 N1482 and that when the bus was nearing Kannikoil near Kanniambadi, he had stopped the bus to facilitate passengers to alight. Subsequently, when he had started to take the bus forward, he had seen a Tata Sumo van coming in front of the bus in the opposite direction and that it was in the process of overtaking another bus coming in the opposite direction. As soon as it overtook the said bus, the Tata Sumo van was stopped, by application of brakes. So, the bus, which had been coming behind the Tata Sumo van had no free space before it and consequently it was swerved to the right side of the road and this had resulted in the collision of the said bus with that of the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN23 N1482. So, the bus, which had been coming behind the Tata Sumo van had no free space before it and consequently it was swerved to the right side of the road and this had resulted in the collision of the said bus with that of the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN23 N1482. But, on cross-examination, RW1 had stated that the accident had been caused by the negligence of the driver of the Tata Sumo van. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence of PW1 and RW1 and also after scrutiny of Ex.P1, wherein it has been stated that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus bearing registration No.TN23 N1482 and also considering that the respondents side had failed to prove their contentions regarding the manner of accident, held that the accident had been caused only due to the high speed and rash and negligent manner of driving by the driver of the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN23 N1482. 12. PW1, in his evidence adduced that due to the accident, he had taken treatment as inpatient at C.M.C.Hospital for one day and that he had taken three months bed rest and due to this he had incurred a loss of income for three months. He had also deposed that he is not able to work as he used to do before the accident. He had stated that he also owned lands and was getting an income of Rs.1,60,000/-through the use of his land. In support of his evidence and during cross-examination, PW1 has stated that he had furnished the revenue records pertaining to the above land in M.C.O.P.No.107 of 2003 filed by his wife. The Tribunal scrutinised these records and Ex.P3, Medical Bills. It was also seen on scrutiny of Exs.P5 to P8 that the petitioner was doing business as a fruit vendor. 13. The Doctor, who had assessed the disability of the petitioner was examined as PW2. PW2, in his evidence, has deposed that the petitioner had sustained fracture in his T11 bone in his spinal cord and that it was a grievous injury and in support of his evidence, has marked Ex.P10, the Xrays. He had also deposed that the petitioner had also sustained a wound of size 1 Cm. X 1 Cm. in the tibia bone of his left leg. He had also deposed that the petitioner had also sustained a wound of size 1 Cm. X 1 Cm. in the tibia bone of his left leg. He has stated that the petitioner had sustained 40% disability on this count and in support of his evidence has marked Ex.P9, the Disability Certificate. The Doctor, during his cross-examination, has stated that the petitioner would have pain while bending his body or trying to stay erect. However, the Tribunal were of the opinion that the assessment made by the Doctor was on the higher side, held that the disability sustained by the petitioner could be taken as 20% only. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P4, the Wound Certificate, held that the fracture sustained by the petitioner was a grievous injury and that the other injury sustained by him in his tibia bone was a simple injury. 14. The Tribunal, on considering that the petitioner was a fruit vendor and had been an inpatient for a day at the hospital and also considering that he would have taken rest for one month due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, awarded a compensation of Rs.3,000/- under the head of loss of income; Rs.1,500/- under the head of partial loss of income; Rs.500/- under the head of medical expenses; Rs.500/-under the head of nutrition; on scrutiny of Ex.P3, the Medical Bills, awarded a sum of Rs.4,990/- under the head of medical expenses; Rs.10,000/-under the head of pain and suffering; Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of income due to the disability of 20% sustained by the petitioner; Rs.10,000/-under the head of loss of earning capacity. In total, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.50,490/-as compensation to the petitioner and the directed the respondent to deposit the above said amount together with interest at the rat 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.108 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Ranipet, Vellore, within a period of one month from the date of its Order. After such deposit was made into Court, the award was to be invested in a nationalised bank, as fixed deposit, for a period of three years. After such deposit was made into Court, the award was to be invested in a nationalised bank, as fixed deposit, for a period of three years. The Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.1,550/-and the respondent was directed to pay the cost of Rs.1,901.50 to the petitioner. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal has failed to note that the appellant has sustained injuries in his spinal cord. According to the report of the Doctor, the injuries are serious in nature and the disability to the appellant as per Ex.P9 is 40%, but the Tribunal reduced the disability to 20 without assigning any reasons. It has been contended that the Tribunal failed to note that at the time of accident, the appellant was doing whole sale Banana business and earning a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-, but the Tribunal reduced the income to Rs.3,000/- per month. It has also been contended that the award of the Tribunal granted under the head of pain and suffering, permanent disability and loss of earning power is on the lower side and hence the learned counsel has prayed for an enhanced compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued that the claimant was an inpatient for only one day at the C.M.C.Hospital. There is no documentary proof to show that he underwent treatment for the injuries sustained by him. The disability certificate was issued by the Doctor stating that the claimant sustained 40% disability, but the assessment of the Doctor regarding the disability was not based on concrete medical records. The learned counsel further argued that the Tribunal awarded the compensation only after well considering the evidence of the claimants and documentary evidence. As such, the appeal is not maintainable and hence the learned counsel has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, scrutiny of findings of the learned Tribunal and arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the view that the award granted by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, this Court modifies the award by granting a revised compensation under various heads as follows: 1. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/-under the head of loss of income for one month. This Court confirms the award granted under this head. 2. Hence, this Court modifies the award by granting a revised compensation under various heads as follows: 1. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/-under the head of loss of income for one month. This Court confirms the award granted under this head. 2. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,500/-under the head of loss of partial income. This Court sets aside the award granted under this head as it is not pertinent. 3. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.500/-under the head of transport expenses. This Court enhances the award granted under this head to Rs.3,000/-. 4. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.500/-under the head of nutrition. This Court enhances the award granted under this head to Rs.3,000/-. 5. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,990/-towards medical expenses. This Court confirms the same. 6. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-under the head of pain and suffering. This Court confirms the award granted under this head. 7. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-under the head of permanent disability of 20%. This Court, on considering that the disability sustained by the claimant is 40%, enhances the award granted under this head to Rs.60,000/-. 8. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-under the head of injuries. This Court sets aside the award granted under this head as it is not pertinent. In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs.83,990/-as compensation to the claimant as it is found to be fair and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The original award amount was Rs.50,490/- granted by the Tribunal. After deducting this amount, this Court awards a sum of Rs.33,500/-as additional compensation to the claimant. This additional compensation amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. 18. Therefore, this Court hereby directs the respondent/State Transport Corporation to deposit the additional compensation amount of a sum of Rs.33,500/- together with interest, as observed above, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.108 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Ranipet, Vellore, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this Order. 19. 19. After such deposit is made into Court, it is open to the appellant to withdraw the entire additional compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.108 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Ranipet, Vellore, after filing necessary payment out application, in accordance with law. 20. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the Award and Decree, dated 15.12.2004, in M.C.O.P.No.108 of 2003, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Ranipet, Vellore is modified. There shall be no order as to costs.