Judgment :- The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 22.09.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.286 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Krishnagiri, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,93,880/-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: The petitioner was aged about 38 years and was working in LIC at the time of accident. He was earning a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-and was the only breadwinner of his family. 4. On27.01.2003, at about 19.25 hrs. while the petitioner was walking on the left side of the Bangalore-Hosur National Highway road and was opposite to Central Bank, Mookondapalli, a TNSTC Bus (Town Bus bearing route No.6A), bearing registration No.TN29 N0893, coming from SIPCOT to Hosur and driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner. Due to the sudden impact, the petitioner sustained fracture of right foot, fracture of left zygoma and fracture of nasal bone and was immediately taken to Government Hospital at Hosur, where he was given medical treatment. Subsequently, he was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Accident Hospital and Research Institute, Bangalore, for further treatment and he was admitted as an inpatient on 28.01.2003 and discharged on 15.02.2003. 5. Due to the accident and injuries, the petitioner is unable to walk, stand, sit and squat and not able to do the work as before. He is not able to lift any weight and not able to drive the vehicle due to the fracture on his right foot. He has sustained permanent disability in the accident. The accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said TNSTC bus bearing registration No.TN29 N0893. The respondent as the owner-cum-insurer of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation. The petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment, from the respondent, with costs, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. The respondent as the owner-cum-insurer of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation. The petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment, from the respondent, with costs, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. The Hosur Traffic Police has registered a case against the driver of the said TNSTC bus in Crime No.17/2003 under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. 7. The respondent, in his counter, has resisted the claim denying the averments made in the claim regarding the age, income and occupation of the petitioner as well as the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, period of treatment and alleged disability. 8. It has been submitted by the respondent that on the date of accident, the driver of the said TNSTC bus, drove the bus slowly and carefully and observing all the rules of the road. But, the petitioner, who was walking on the left side of the road had suddenly turned towards the right side and came to the middle of the road without seeing the oncoming bus, which was coming at a distance of 100 feet from him. As the petitioner was in a drunken mood and not in control of his senses, the accident had occurred and as such the bus driver cannot be held responsible for the accident. Hence, the respondent had stated that he is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. 9. The respondent has also submitted that the claim of the petitioner of Rs.50,000/-towards medical expenses is not true as the petitioner had received free treatment from Government Hospital, Hosur. The respondent had submitted that the petitioner has only sustained simple injuries and as such there was no permanent disability, caused to him in the accident. In short, the respondent has submitted that the compensation claimed by the petitioner was excessive and has prayed for dismissal of the petitioner as against him, with costs. 10. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for the consideration namely: (i) Who is responsible for the accident? (ii) Is the petitioner entitled to receive compensation? (iii) What is the quantum of compensation, which the petitioner is entitled to get? 11. On the petitioners side, two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and five documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P5. (ii) Is the petitioner entitled to receive compensation? (iii) What is the quantum of compensation, which the petitioner is entitled to get? 11. On the petitioners side, two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and five documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P5. On the respondents side one witness was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked. 12. The petitioner was examined as PW1. He deposed in his evidence that on 27.01.2003, at about 7.25 p.m. while he was walking on the extreme left side of the Bangalore-Hosur National Highway and when he was opposite the Central Bank at Mookandapalli, the TNSTC bus coming from SIPCOT towards Hosur, driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against him; that consequent to this, he had fallen down and the front tyre of the said bus had run over his right leg; that as a result of this, he had sustained fracture in his leg and he had been admitted in the Government Hospital, Hosur, for treatment. In support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P1, the FIR; Ex.P2, the Wound Certificate issued by the Hospital and Ex.P3, the Wound Certificate issued by the Sanjay Gandhi Medical Hospital. 13. The driver of the bus was examined as RW1. He deposed in his evidence that on 27.01.2003, he had driven the bus bearing registration No.TN29 N0893 from SIPCOT, Hosur towards Athippalli and was returning from Athippalli towards SIPCOT; that when the bus was nearing Mookandapalli, at about 7.00 p.m. he had seen the petitioner suddenly crossing the road on his right side and consequent to this, the petitioners leg had been hit by the right tyre of the bus; that the bus had been driven slowly by him at the time of the said accident. Further, he deposed that on seeing the petitioner being hit, he had thought that the petitioner had died and so he had fled the scene of occurrence, by boarding another bus, due to fear of assault by the public at large. 14. Further, he deposed that on seeing the petitioner being hit, he had thought that the petitioner had died and so he had fled the scene of occurrence, by boarding another bus, due to fear of assault by the public at large. 14. From the evidence of the RW1, it is seen that he had not denied the occurrence of the accident, but on the contrary had stated that he had driven the bus slowly but that the accident had happened because the petitioner had suddenly come across the road and tried to cross it without seeing the oncoming bus. The Tribunal was of the opinion that if the driver of the bus had really driven the bus slowly as contended by him, he could have applied brakes, after seeing the petitioner cross the road and stopped the bus thereby averting the accident. As such, the Tribunal held that the driver of the bus was not able to avert the accident, as he had driven the bus at a high speed. Further, the Tribunal on scrutiny of the evidence of the RW1, wherein he had stated that he had fled the scene of occurrence because he had thought that the petitioner had died in the accident and also on consideration of evidence of PW1 and on scrutiny of FIR held that the accident had been caused only due to the fault of the respondents bus driver. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 15. The PW1, in his evidence, has deposed that due to the accident he had sustained fractures in the bones of his right leg, left cheek and nose and also had sustained injuries all over his body; that he had been taken immediately and admitted at Government Hospital, Hosur; that after receiving first aid, he was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Medical Hospital, Bangalore and received treatment there; that he had spent a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenses. In support of his evidence, the PW1 has marked Ex.P2, the Wound Certificate issued by the Government Hospital, Hosur and Ex.P3, the Discharge Summary issued by the Sanjay Gandhi Medical Hospital, Bangalore. 16. Dr.Elangovan, who had assessed the disability of the petitioner was examined as PW2. In support of his evidence, the PW1 has marked Ex.P2, the Wound Certificate issued by the Government Hospital, Hosur and Ex.P3, the Discharge Summary issued by the Sanjay Gandhi Medical Hospital, Bangalore. 16. Dr.Elangovan, who had assessed the disability of the petitioner was examined as PW2. The PW2, in his evidence, had deposed that on 30.08.2004, he had carried out a medical examination of the petitioner and had found that due to the improper joining of the fractured mayole bone in the right heel of the petitioner, the muscles around this bone had hardened and that as a result of this the movements of the petitioners upper portion of heel had reduced by 20 Degrees and the movements of his lower heel had reduced by 15 Degrees. He had further deposed that the petitioner had difficulty in breathing due to the improper joining of the fractured bone in his nose. He had further stated that the petitioner is prone to suffer from ache in the left side of his head and he has difficulty in walking for long periods and also has difficulty in sitting and squatting. He had also deposed that the petitioners fractured Jaibama bone had joined imperfectly. The PW2, had therefore, certified that the petitioner has sustained 40% partial disability and sustained 25% permanent disability in his body due to the above said injuries and has marked Ex.P4, the Disability Certificate. As such, the Tribunal on consideration of evidence of PW1 and PW2 and on scrutiny of Ex.P2, the Wound Certificate and Ex.P4, the Disability Certificate, held that the petitioner had sustained 25% disability in the accident. 17. The petitioner has stated in his evidence that he was a LIC Agent and was also an agriculturist as well as a vegetable vendor and that he was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month, but due to the accident he is not able to do any work. But, the petitioner has not let in any documentary evidence to prove his occupation and income. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P5, the medical bills, awarded a compensation of Rs.15,380/-to the petitioner under the head of medical expenses. 18. The Tribunal, taking a notional income of Rs.100/-per day as the petitioners earning assessed his monthly income as Rs.3,000/-and his yearly income as Rs.36,000/-. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P5, the medical bills, awarded a compensation of Rs.15,380/-to the petitioner under the head of medical expenses. 18. The Tribunal, taking a notional income of Rs.100/-per day as the petitioners earning assessed his monthly income as Rs.3,000/-and his yearly income as Rs.36,000/-. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P2, the Wound Certificate, held that the age of the petitioner was 38 years at the time of accident. Adopting a multiplier of 16, relevant to the above age, the Tribunal assessed his total loss of earnings due to disability as Rs.36,000/- X 25/100 X 16 = Rs.1,44,000/-. The Tribunal, therefore awarded a sum of Rs.1,44,000/-to the petitioner as compensation under the head of permanent disability, loss of pleasures of life and future loss of income. The Tribunal further granted an award of Rs.25,000/-to the petitioner under the head of grievious injuries; Rs.5,000/- under the head of pain and suffering; Rs.3,000/- under the head of nutrition; Rs.1,500/- under the head of transport expenses and Rs.15,380/- under the head of medical expenses. In total, the Tribunal granted an award of Rs.1,93,880/-to the petitioner, the award being inclusive of interim award received by the petitioner if any, as compensation 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.286 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Krishnagiri, within a period of two months from the date of its Order. Further, after such deposit was made, the said amount was to be deposited in a nationalised bank, as fixed deposit, for a period three years and the petitioner was permitted to receive interest on such deposit once in three months. The petitioner was directed to pay the Court fee due on the award amount within a period of two months from the date of its Order. The Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.6,877/-. 19. The petitioner was directed to pay the Court fee due on the award amount within a period of two months from the date of its Order. The Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.6,877/-. 19. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal ought to have held that the injured claimant, Somappa, who was in a drunken mood and walking on the left side of the road, turned suddenly towards the right side and came to the middle of the road, without observing any rules and dashed against the Corporation bus and invited the accident himself. As such, it was contended that the Tribunal ought to have held that the claimant had been negligent and reduced the compensation. It was also contended that the Tribunal failed to note that no Police Officer was examined to prove the negligent on the part of the bus driver. Further, it has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the Tribunal had erred in awarding a sum of Rs.1,44,000/-towards permanent disability based on disability at 25% and adopting the multiplier method in assessment of compensation. It was also contended that the Tribunal had erred in holding that the accident was solely caused by the driver of the appellant Corporation on mere surmises and conjucture without properly appreciating the evidence on record. 20. As such, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has prayed to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 21. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued that the Tribunal had not awarded sufficient compensation for the transport expenses as well as under the head of nutrition. The claimant sustained grievious injuries but, the Tribunal had awarded only Rs.5,000/- under the head of pain and suffering, which is on the lower side. The learned counsel further submitted that the claimant is involved in agricultural work. As such, he has to use his physical strength to carry out his regular work. Due to the said accident, he is unable to do any work. The claimants nose bone and left side cheek bone were fractured. As such, the claimants face has become distorted. The Tribunal, after well considering all the aspects namely nature of injuries, disability and treatment period and claimants occupation had granted the award in favour of the claimant. 22. Due to the said accident, he is unable to do any work. The claimants nose bone and left side cheek bone were fractured. As such, the claimants face has become distorted. The Tribunal, after well considering all the aspects namely nature of injuries, disability and treatment period and claimants occupation had granted the award in favour of the claimant. 22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either sides, scrutiny of findings of the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the claimant has suffered grievious injury in his right heel and also fracture in his nasal bone and also sustained a fracture on his left side cheek. Considering that the above injuries are grievious in nature, this Court is of the view that the quantum of award granted by the Tribunal as compensation is fair and reasonable. But, the Tribunals award of Rs.25,000/-granted under the head of grievious injuries is not pertinent. As such, the total award granted by the Tribunal is restructured as follows: 1. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.1,500/-under the head of transport expenses. This Court enhances the award granted under the above said head to Rs.5,000/-as the claimant had gone to Bangalore and took treatment. 2. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/-under the head of nutrition. This Court enhances the award granted under this head to Rs.5,000/-. 3. This Court, on considering that the petitioner had to recuperate for a period of three months and that during this period he would have incurred a loss of income, grants a sum of Rs.4,500/- as compensation to the claimant under the head of loss of income for a period of three months. 4. This Court, also on considering that the claimant has sustained facial disfigurement due to fractures of his cheek bone and nasal bone and considering that this had caused indirectly a loss of pleasure of life to the claimant grants an award of Rs.10,000/-to the claimant under the head of loss of pleasure of life. The award of the Tribunal granted under the various other heads are found to be appropriate and as such this Court confirms the award granted under the above said heads. 23. The award of the Tribunal granted under the various other heads are found to be appropriate and as such this Court confirms the award granted under the above said heads. 23. As such, it is found by this Court that the quantum of award ie.a sum of Rs.1,93,880/- 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, granted by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.286 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Krishnagiri, is reasonable and fair and as such, this Court confirms the above said award passed by the Tribunal. 24. On 14.03.2005, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant/State Transport Corporation to deposit the entire compensation amount, including the interest and costs, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.286 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Krishnagiri. Further, this Court permitted the claimant to withdraw 50% of the award amount, with entire accrued interest and costs. 25. As the accident happened in the year 2003, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the balance compensation amount together with accrued interest and costs, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.286 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Krishnagiri, after filing necessary payment out application, in accordance with law, subject to deduction of earlier withdrawals, if any. 26. As such, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Award and Decree, dated 22.09.2004, in M.C.O.P.No.286 of 2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Krishnagiri, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.