Judgment :- 1. C.M.A.No.662 of 2004 and Cross Objection No. 44 of 2009 are filed by the Transport Corporation and the claimant respectively against the award dated 27.06.2003 made in MCOP No.2509 of 2000 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Judge, Court of Small Causes) Chennai. 2. The Transport Corporation as well as the claimant have filed the above appeal and Cross Objection. Hence, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment. For convenience, the parties are described as they are arrived in C.M.A.No.662 of 2004. 3. Background facts in a nuthell are as follows: The claimant-Sudhakar met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 16.12.1999 at about 5.00 p.m. While the claimant was travelling as passenger in a bus bearing registration No.TN-23N-1011 belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation from Vellore to Chennai, the driver of the bus driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the tipper lorry coming in the opposite direction. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained multiple fracture on his right hand and other injuries. Immediately he was admitted in the Government General Hospital, Vellore. He claimed a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- as compensation before the Tribunal. The Transport Corporation resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1.Who is responsible for the accident? 2. How much compensation the claimant is entitled to ?” After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,73,300/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of earning during treatment Period Rs. 37,800/- Transport charges Rs. 10,000/-Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/-Medical expenses and Hospital charges Rs. 1,95,500/- Attendant charges Rs. 5,000/-Pain and sufferings Rs. 20,000/-80% permanent disability Rs. 1,00,000/- Future loss of earning power Rs. 1,00,000/- Total... Rs. 4,73,300/- Aggrieved by that award, the Transport Corporation as well as the claimant have filed the present appeal and cross objection. 4. 37,800/- Transport charges Rs. 10,000/-Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/-Medical expenses and Hospital charges Rs. 1,95,500/- Attendant charges Rs. 5,000/-Pain and sufferings Rs. 20,000/-80% permanent disability Rs. 1,00,000/- Future loss of earning power Rs. 1,00,000/- Total... Rs. 4,73,300/- Aggrieved by that award, the Transport Corporation as well as the claimant have filed the present appeal and cross objection. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification and that therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very low and meagre and the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as claimed by the claimants and the Tribunal has not followed the principles of assessment before passing the award. He further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards loss of amenities and it ought to have awarded compensation towards loss of leave and hence, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very low and meagre and seeks enhancement of the compensation. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P14 were marked. On the side of the Transport Corporation RW1Noorbasha , who is the Conductor of the bus was examined and no document was marked to support their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. PW2 is Dr.Sai Chandran. PW3 is the bank officer. Ex.P1 is the bus ticket. Ex.P2 is the photo copy of the first information report. Ex.P3 is the series of X-ray report. Ex.P4 is the series of hospital bills. Ex.P5 is the series of medical bills. Ex.P6 series are travels bill. Ex.P7 is the series of working sheet. Ex.P8 is the disability certificate. Ex.P9 is the x-ray. Ex.P10 is the photo and negative. Ex.P11 is the salary slip. Ex.P12 is the leave letter. Ex.P13 is the discharge summary. Ex.P14 is the series of memos given by the bank. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Ex.P11 is the salary slip. Ex.P12 is the leave letter. Ex.P13 is the discharge summary. Ex.P14 is the series of memos given by the bank. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. But the learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation heavily relied on the statement given by PW1 in the cross examination that the bus had not overtaken any vehicle. Though the learned counsel relied on the cross examination of PW1, he has not taken any steps to register a case against the driver of the tipper lorry and no document has been filed to prove their contention. Though RW1, the Conductor deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper lorry, immediately after the accident, no case was registered against the driver of the lorry. The driver of the tipper lorry was not examined before the Tribunal. A case was registered only against the driver of the bus in Crime No.945 of 1999 of Arcot Town Police Station, Vellore District. PW1 clearly deposed that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, who went wrong side and hit the tipper lorry, which came in the opposite direction. The learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., V. PREMLATA SHUKLA AND ORS reported in (2007) 2 TN MAC 106, wherein it has been held that once a part of contents of document admitted in evidence, the party bringing same on record not permitted to turn round and contend that other contents in rest part thereof had not been proved. But the abovesaid decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Here, on the evidence of independent witness, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. In such circumstances, the Tribunal is correct in coming to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence and it does not require any interference. 8. In such circumstances, the Tribunal is correct in coming to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence and it does not require any interference. 8. At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 41 years. He is working as Cashier/Clerk in Indian Overseas Bank, Koddakkal Vill, Walaja Taluk, Vellore District. PW-1, the claimant deposed in his evidence that while he was traveling in the bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation from Vellore to Chennai, the driver of the bus driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the tipper lorry, which came in the opposite direction. Due to which, the claimant sustained following injuries: “1. Fracture of right humorous with segmental bone loss and right radial nerve palsy; 2. Fracture of right elbow; and 3. Multiple lacerations over the arm and elbow and multiple soft tissue injuries.” The claimant further deposed in his evidence that immediately after the accident he was admitted in Government General Hospital, Vellore, on 16.12.1999 and 17.12.1999 and took treatment in Appollo Hospital as in patient from 17.12.1999 to 31.12.1999 and from 23.1.2000 to 29.1.2000. A case has been registered in Crime No.945 of 1999 of Arcot Town Police Station, Vellore District. PW2-Dr.Saichandran, who examined the claimant, deposed that the claimant sustained fracture in his right elbow and no bones were found at one side and hence, a rod has been fixed and later, there was malunion of bones and hence, he had undergone surgery and screws were fixed and due to which, there is shortening of hand and he cannot do the work by using his right hand and hence, the Doctor has fixed the disability at 80% and issued Ex.P8 disability certificate. PW3, who is the officer of the Indian Overseas Bank, deposed that the claimant was earning Rs.6,300/- per month and also marked Ex.P11 salary slip. He further deposed that from 16.12.1999 to 30.04.2001 (326 days) the claimant applied leave, in which, 130 days of loss of pay leave also included and the claimant claimed a sum of Rs.2,97,633.06 towards medical expenses and only Rs.1,02,152.96 was sanctioned and he had also marked Ex.P14-memorandum, however, the balance sum of 1,95,480.91 was rejected. He further deposed that from 16.12.1999 to 30.04.2001 (326 days) the claimant applied leave, in which, 130 days of loss of pay leave also included and the claimant claimed a sum of Rs.2,97,633.06 towards medical expenses and only Rs.1,02,152.96 was sanctioned and he had also marked Ex.P14-memorandum, however, the balance sum of 1,95,480.91 was rejected. Considering the same, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs,1,95,500/- towards medical expenses, which is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges. The claimant was admitted in the Government General Hospital, Vellore and Appollo Hospital, Chennai from 16.12.1999 to 17.12.1999 and took treatment in Appollo Hospital as in-patient from 17.12.1999 to 31.12.1999 and from 23.1.2000 to 29.1.2000. Considering the same, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.5,000/-towards attendant charges, which is very low. Considering the period of treatment as in patient and the nature of injuries sustained, I am of the view that it would be reasonable to award Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges as against Rs.5,000/- each awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering. The claimant sustained fracture and undergone surgery and screws have been fixed. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, it would be reasonable to award Rs.30,000/- under this head as against Rs.20,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.37,800/- towards loss of earning during treatment period. The claimant availed leave from 16.12.1999 to 30.04.2001 (326 days), in which, 130 days of loss of pay leave also included. PW3 deposed that the claimant was earning Rs.6300/-per month. Considering the same, the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards 80% permanent disability. PW2-Dr.Saichandran, who examined the claimant, has issued Ex.P8 disability certificate. There is no dispute regarding the same. Normally the Courts award Rs.1000/- to 2000/-per percentage of disability. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained, I feel that it would be appropriate to award Rs.1750/-per percentage of disability and, if calculated, the amount comes to Rs.1,40,000/-(Rs.1750 x 80%) under this head as against Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards future loss of earning. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained, I feel that it would be appropriate to award Rs.1750/-per percentage of disability and, if calculated, the amount comes to Rs.1,40,000/-(Rs.1750 x 80%) under this head as against Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards future loss of earning. The learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation vehemently contended that when the Tribunal has awarded compensation towards permanent disability, it ought not to have awarded further sum towards future loss of earning. PW3, the officer of the Bank, where the claimant is working, has deposed that the claimant is now continuing his work in the bank and was receiving salary of Rs.9000/- per month. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Cholan Roadways Vs. Ahmed Thambi, 2006 (4) CTC 433 , held that whenever compensation towards permanent disability is awarded, further amount towards future loss of earning should not be awarded. Applying the principle enunciated in the above Full Bench decision of this Court, the amount of Rs1,00,000/-awarded by the Tribunal in respect of future loss of earning is unwarranted and the same is deleted. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant vehemently contended that the claimant availed 326 days leave. If there is no accident, he would not have taken the said leave and the leave should have been taken by him for some other purpose in future and therefore, for the said period compensation should be paid and in support of the said contention he has also relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of B.ANANDHI V. R.LATHA AND ANOTHER reported in 2002 ACJ 233, where the Court has considered the principles of assessment and awarded compensation for the leave taken, even though the claimant received leave salary for this period and para 13 of the said judgment reads as follows: "Because of the injury sustained by him in the accident, the claimant had to be on leave for a period of four months for taking treatment. So, he was constrained to apply for leave because of this accident and the fact that he received salary for this period is not a ground to contend that the petitioner is not entitled to get compensation for loss of earning for this period. So, he was constrained to apply for leave because of this accident and the fact that he received salary for this period is not a ground to contend that the petitioner is not entitled to get compensation for loss of earning for this period. Accordingly, we confirm the award passed by the Tribunal in this aspect." After considering the principles enunciated in the above judgment, this Court is of the view that the claimant is entitled to compensation for loss of leave period. At the time of accident, he was earning Rs.6300/-per month. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be reasonable to award a consolidated sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of leave period. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities and it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-under this head. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% per annum. The date of accident is 16.12.1999. Considering the prevailing rate of interest during that period, the interest awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Loss of earning during treatment Period Rs. 37,800/- Transport charges Rs. 10,000/-Extra nourishment Rs. 15 ,000/-Medical expenses and Hospital charges Rs. 1,95,500/- Attendant charges Rs. 10,000/-Pain and sufferings Rs. 30,000/-80% permanent disability Rs. 1,40,000/- Loss of leave period Rs. 50,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 5,000/- Total... Rs. 4,93,300/-Less: Already awarded amount Rs. 4,73,300/- Enhanced amount Rs. 20,000/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.20,000/-(Rs.4,93,300/--4,73,300) with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition. 9. The Appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same on making proper application. In respect of award amount of Rs.4,73,300/-is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation submitted that entire award amount has been deposited as per order of this Court dated 29.04.2004 and the claimant was also permitted to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount. In such circumstances, the claimant is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount, after adjusting the amount already withdrawn, on making proper application. 10. In such circumstances, the claimant is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount, after adjusting the amount already withdrawn, on making proper application. 10. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as well as cross objection are disposed of. No costs.