Judgment : 1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 29.09.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.336 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate No.II, Krishnagiri, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,28,134/- 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/respondent has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the said award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 28.04.2003, at about 19.45 hours, the petitioner was walking on the left side of the mud portion of the road in Bangalore to Hosur road, opposite to Sunnambu G.P., at that time the respondents Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN29 N0862 was driven by its driver in a rash and reckless manner, at high speed from Kelamangalam towards Hosur and suddenly hit the petitioner from behind him. As such, the petitioner was thrown down and sustained grievous injuries. 4. Immediately after the said accident, the petitioner was rushed to Government Hospital at Hosur for preliminary treatment, thereafter he was admitted at NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore, for further treatment. Thereafter he was admitted in Abhaya Hospital, Bangalore as an inpatient for a week. The petitioners right side ribs between 3 to 8 are fractured. Canine teeth upper had fallen and he also sustained multiple injuries all over his body. At the time of the accident the petitioner was 50 years and employed as a Mechanic, his earnings was Rs.3,000/- per month. The Hosur Traffic Police had registered a case against the driver of the State Transport Corporation Bus in Crime No.85/2003 under Section 279 and 337 of I.P.C. The action had happened due to negligence of the respondent State Transport Corporation Bus driver. As such, the respondent State Transport Corporation is liable to pay compensation, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. 5. The respondent has filed a counter statement and resisted the compensation. The respondent admitted the accident, which had happened on the Hosur to Bangalore road on 28.04.2003, at about 19.45 hours. But, the accident had not taken place as alleged by the petitioner. 5. The respondent has filed a counter statement and resisted the compensation. The respondent admitted the accident, which had happened on the Hosur to Bangalore road on 28.04.2003, at about 19.45 hours. But, the accident had not taken place as alleged by the petitioner. Actually the petitioner was walking opposite to the running position of the bus, when all of a sudden, the petitioner crossed the road from left to right, however the driver applied sudden brake to avoid hitting the petitioner. The petitioners own contributory negligence is the cause for the accident, as such the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. Further, the respondent denies the age, occupation and income of the petitioner. The petitioners claim is an excessive one, rate of interest is also high. 6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for the consideration namely: (i) Who is responsible for the accident? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation as claimed? (iii)What is the quantum of compensation? 7. On the side of the petitioner two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and five documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P5 namely Ex.P1-FIR; Ex.P2-Wound Certificate; Ex.P3-Discharge Summary; Ex.P4-Medical Receipts and Ex.P5-Disability Certificate. On the side of the respondent one witness was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked. 8. The petitioner was examined as PW1. In his evidence he stated that on 28.04.2003 at about 7.45 p.m. he was walking on the Bangalore-Hosur road on the extreme left side, when the respondents bus coming from Kelamangalam towards Hosur at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the vehicle against him, resulting the petitioner was thrown out. Immediately, he was rushed to the Government Hospital at Hosur. A case was registered against the driver of the bus. To prove the accident and injuries sustained by the petitioner, he has marked two documents namely Ex.P1-FIR and Ex.P2-Wound Certificate. 9. On the side of the respondent, one Krishnamoorthi was examined as RW1. In his evidence he adduced evidence that on 28.04.2003, the bus coming from kelamangalam towards Hosur road, the petitioner suddenly crossed the road, immediately the driver of the bus applied the brake, when the petitioner came and collided with the bus. Immediately, he was rushed to the hospital for treatment. 10. In his evidence he adduced evidence that on 28.04.2003, the bus coming from kelamangalam towards Hosur road, the petitioner suddenly crossed the road, immediately the driver of the bus applied the brake, when the petitioner came and collided with the bus. Immediately, he was rushed to the hospital for treatment. 10. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of the PW1, RW1 and Ex.P1 had come to the conclusion that the accident had happened due to the negligence of the bus driver. As such, the respondent/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is liable to pay compensation. 11. The PW1 further adduced evidence that he sustained injuries in the said accident on his right fore head, fifth teeth of the upper jaw had fallen, right side rib bones 3 to 8 had fractured and bleeding injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was rushed to the Government Hospital at Hosur. For further treatment he was admitted at NIMHANS Hospital Bangalore. He spent around Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses etc., Further, he needs another Rs.25,000/-for future medical expenses. The PW1 further adduced evidence that at the time of accident he was a motor mechanic by profession and he was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. 12. Dr.Elangovan was examined as PW2. In his evidence he adduced that he had examined the petitioner on 07.09.2004 and he noticed that the petitioners rib bones from 3 to 8 had fractured and in a pressed position. Consequently, he is suffering respiration problem. As such, he is unable to carry weight and unable to drive vehicles. Finally, the Doctor assessed that the petitioner sustained 35% disability. He had marked disability certificate as Ex.P5. 13. Considering the evidence of the PW1 and PW2, the Tribunal has fixed the age of the petitioner as 55 years and the annual income of Rs.36,000/- and adopted a multiplier of 18 and disability has taken as 20%. Hence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.79,200/-for shock, uncomfortable and disability; Rs.25,000/- for grievous injuries; Rs.3,000/-for pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/- for transport expenses; Rs.5,934/- for for medical expenses and Rs.3,000/-for nutrition. In total, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,28,134/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The Tribunal further directed the respondent to deposit the said compensation amount within a period of two months. In total, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,28,134/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The Tribunal further directed the respondent to deposit the said compensation amount within a period of two months. In turn, the award amount should be deposited in any one of the nationalised bank under the fixed deposit scheme. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the interest on the said award amount once in three months. The Advocate fees fixed at Rs.5,562/-. 14. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, dated 29.09.2004, in M.C.O.P.No.336 of 2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate No.II, Krishnagiri, the appellant/respondent has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the said award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the age of the petitioner and the income of the petitioner was considered erroneously without any documentary evidence. The learned counsel further pointed out that the award granted under the heads of pain and suffering, grievous injuries, medical expenses and nourishment are not proper. Hence, the learned counsel prays to scale down the compensation amount. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has argued that the claimant is a mechanic, he has to use physical force during his occupation. After the said accident he is unable to carry on his normal profession. The Tribunal awarded the compensation on the basis of disability certificate, medical bills, income and occupation of the claimant. Also considered the evidences of the PW1 and PW2. As such, the award and decree passed by the Tribunal is a well-considered one. There is no discrepancy in the said award. Hence, the appeal is not maintainable. 17. 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 minor discrepancy in the said award. The Tribunal had assessed the compensation under the head of loss of income and disability and awarded a sum of Rs.79,200/-. Besides a sum of Rs.3,000/-under the head of pain and suffering. As such, the Tribunals award of Rs.25,000/-under the head of grievous injury is not pertinent. Hence, the Court set aside the award of Rs.25,000/- under the head of grievous injury. The rest of the awards granted by the Tribunal is confirmed by this Court. 18. Besides a sum of Rs.3,000/-under the head of pain and suffering. As such, the Tribunals award of Rs.25,000/-under the head of grievous injury is not pertinent. Hence, the Court set aside the award of Rs.25,000/- under the head of grievous injury. The rest of the awards granted by the Tribunal is confirmed by this Court. 18. Therefore, this Court scale down the award amount from Rs.1,28,134/-to Rs.1,03,134/- 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 imposed a condition on the appellant on 27.06.2005 to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.336 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate No.II, Krishnagiri. Further, this Court permitted the respondent/claimant to withdraw 50% of the award amount with accrued interest thereon. 19. As the accident happened in the year 2003, it is open to the respondent/claimant to withdraw the balance compensation amount as per this Court Order observed above, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.336 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate No.II, Krishnagiri, by making proper payment out application in accordance with law. The appellant is at liberty to withdraw the excess compensation amount, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.336 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate No.II, Krishnagiri, after observing necessary formalities before the Court below. 20. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the Award and Decree, dated 29.09.2004, in M.C.O.P.No.336 of 2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate No.II, Krishnagiri, is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.