Judgment :- The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 07.04.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.239 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. II, Cuddalore, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,84,000/- 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 scale down the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 22.08.2008, at about 16.30 hours, when the petitioner was travelling in the respondents Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN32 N0566 from Pattambakkam to Cuddalore, at Thirupapuliyur bus stand the petitioner while getting down from the bus, the driver of the bus suddenly started the bus without signal from the conductor, resulting the petitioner fell down on the floor from out of the bus, thereby the petitioner sustained fracture on his left leg, immediately he was rushed to the Krishna Hospital, Cuddalore. 4. The petitioner further submits that he is the owner of a Jewellery shop. Due to the said accident he could not continue his jewellery business. The said accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. As such, the respondent Corporation is liable to pay compensation. Hence, the petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest. 5. The respondent in their counter statement submits that the age, occupation, monthly income, the nature of the alleged injuries sustained by the petitioner, the period of treatment, medical expenditure and disability are not admitted by the respondent. The manner of the accident as alleged by the petitioner is not correct. The true facts are as follows: On 22.08.2000, at about 14.50 hours, the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN32 N0566 was on its scheduled trip from Villupuram to Cuddalore. The bus reached Cuddalore bus stand and the driver of the bus was trying to park the bus in parking area whilst so doing the petitioner, who came in the bus attempted to get down from the moving bus, lost his balance and fell down on the floor from out of the bus, in which he sustained simple injuries. The bus reached Cuddalore bus stand and the driver of the bus was trying to park the bus in parking area whilst so doing the petitioner, who came in the bus attempted to get down from the moving bus, lost his balance and fell down on the floor from out of the bus, in which he sustained simple injuries. The accident had happened due to the carelessness and negligent of the petitioner. The respondent further submitted that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor at the time of accident. As such, the respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely: (i) Did the accident happen through whose carelessness? (ii) Whether the petitioner 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 eight documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P8 namely Ex.P1-copy of the FIR, Ex.P2-copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report, Ex.P3-copy of the Accident Register, Ex.P4-copy of the Charge Sheet, Ex.P5-Medical Bill series, Ex.P6-Photos with negative, Ex.P7-Disability Certificate and Ex.P8-Xray.On the respondents side one witness was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked. 8. The petitioner was examined as PW1.In his evidence he adduced stating that he was travelling in the respondents bus on 2.08.2000 at about 5.30 p.m. from Pattambakkam to Cuddalore and after the bus reaching Cuddalore bus stand, the petitioner was trying to alight from the bus and at that time the driver of the bus suddenly moved the vehicle, as such the accident had happened. Regarding the said accident, a case was registered against the driver of the bus, the FIR marked as Ex.p1.Further he adduced evidence that in the said accident, the front wheel of the bus ran over his left leg and he sustained fracture injuries.Ex.P2 Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report, which disclosed that the accident had not happened due to any mechanical failure. The Police Officer has filed a criminal case against the driver of the bus before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Cuddalore, which is Ex.P4. The Police Officer has filed a criminal case against the driver of the bus before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Cuddalore, which is Ex.P4. Considering the above evidence and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the driver of the bus was the cause of the said accident (RW1 has adduced evidence stating that the PW1 was consuming liquor at the time of the accident and tried to get down from the bus before the vehicle could stop).Hence, the Tribunal decided to award compensation to the petitioner. Further he adduced evidence stating that he sustained bone fracture injury on his left leg and also sustained bleeding injuries on his entire body. Immediately, he was rushed to the Krishna Hospital, Cuddalore, wherein, he was an inpatient for a period one month. At the time of accident, he was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-.He had spent a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards medical expenses. Further, he stated that he was 45 years old. The PW1 has marked Ex.P3, the accident report. It reveals that the claimant was hospitalised for the period from 22.08.2000 to 03.10.2000 as an inpatient. His left leg sole bone was fractured. 9. One Dr. Ramalingam was examined as PW2.He adduced evidence after examining the petitioner and he adduced evidence that the petitioner had undergone two surgical operations, on his left leg and left leg sole, resulting that the movement of the left leg of the claimant is curtailed. Further, he is unable to walk and resorts to climbing. The PW2 also took an Xray and on verifying the medical records, he issued a Disability Certificate stating that the petitioner had sustained 40% disability. 10. Considering the evidence of the PW1 and PW2, the Tribunal had awarded a compensation to the petitioner as follows: 1. For permanent disability, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was awarded, 2. For loss of income, a sum of Rs.54,000/-was awarded, after adopting the multiplier method as Rs.3,600/- X 15, 3. For medical expenses, a sum of Rs.70,000/- was awarded, 4. For nourishment, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded, 5. For pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.30,000/- was awarded, In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,84,000/-as compensation to the petitioner, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. For nourishment, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded, 5. For pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.30,000/- was awarded, In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,84,000/-as compensation to the petitioner, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. The Tribunal directed the respondent to deposit the said compensation amount into the Court within a period of one month. In turn, the said amount to be deposited in any one of a nationalised bank for a period of three years under the fixed deposit scheme. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the interest once in three months from the deposited amount. The Advocate fees fixed at Rs.6,880/-. 11. Against the said said award and decree 07.04.2004, in M.C.O.P.No.239 of 2003, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.II, Cuddalore, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation has filed this appeal praying to scale down the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.54,000/- for loss of income and a sum of Rs.25,000/- for disability, which are not pertinent. Further, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-for pain and suffering, which is on the higher side. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/-for medical expenses, without proper medical bills. Hence, the learned counsel prays to scale down the compensation amount passed by the Tribunal. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued that the award granted by the Tribunal is proper. After considering the oral evidence of the PW1 and PW2 and after verifying the medical records, the award was granted. The Tribunal failed to consider the transport expenses in the said award. The learned counsel further argued that there is no error in the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. The award is a well considered one. As such, the appeal is not maintainable. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, scrutiny of the findings of the Tribunal and the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing on either side, this Court is of the view that there is a slight discrepancy in the award. Hence, this Court modifies the award by way of scaling it down as follows: 1. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, scrutiny of the findings of the Tribunal and the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing on either side, this Court is of the view that there is a slight discrepancy in the award. Hence, this Court modifies the award by way of scaling it down as follows: 1. This Court awards a sum of Rs.60,000/- under the head of disability at 40% disability, 2. For nutrition, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-, this Court confirms the same under this head, 3. For pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-, this Court reduces it to Rs.20,000/-, 4. For medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/-, this Court confirms the same on the strength of Ex.P5. In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs.1,55,000/-as compensation to the claimant, with interest at the rate of 9%, which is found to be fair and equitable. 15. Therefore, this Court scales down the award amount from Rs.1,84,000/-to Rs.1,55,000/- 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 theM.C.O.P.No.239 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.II, Cuddalore. 16. On 04.10.205, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.239 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.II, Cuddalore. The said condition was complied by the appellant. On 12.12.2005, this Court permitted the claimant to withdraw 50% of the award amount with accrued interest. 17. As the accident happened in the year 2000, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the balance compensation amount of the this Court Order, as observed above, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.239 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.II, Cuddalore, after filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law. 18. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the Award and Decree, dated 07.04.2004, in M.C.O.P.No.239 of 2003, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.II, Cuddalore, is modified. There shall be no order as to costs.