Judgment : K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA,J., In the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehile Act by the Respondent-claimant, in MVC No.1371/2004, seeking compensation for personal injuries sustained by her in the Road Traffic Accident that occurred at about 9.45 pm., on 06/01/2003 as a result of motor cab bearing registration No. TN-74-c-4383 colliding with the two wheeler ridden by her, the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes and Principal MACT, Bangalore, has quantified the total compensation payable to the claimant at Rs. 8,95,902/-under different heads as under:- 1. Pain and Sufferings Rs. 50,000/- 2. Towards Medical expenses, Rs. 1,50,000/- 3. Transportation Rs. 2,000/- 4. Disability Rs. 2,00,000/- 5. Loss of earning Rs. 4,15,302/- 6. Loss of marital life Rs. 50,000/- 7. Expenses while inpatient In the hospital Rs. 28,600/- Total = Rs. 8,95,902/- 2) Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award of the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has presented this appeal complaining that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is in the higher side and the percentage of contributory negligence attributed to the claimant at 20% is on the lower side, having regard to the evidence on record. The claimant being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, has filed cross-objection after the receipt of notice of the appeal. 3) We have heard Miss. Preethi Komar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company and Miss.Indhumathi, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant, and perused the records. 4) Miss. Preethi Komar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company, in support of the appeal submits as under: 1) Though the evidence on record indicates that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the claimant herself while crossing the main road, the Tribunal has erroneously held that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the motor cab and the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant which is quantified at 20%: ii) Having regard to the evidence on record, the negligence on the part of the claimant could not have been as low as 20%, when the claimant herself was negligent in riding the two wheeler carelessly and navigating to the right side of the road without due care and caution. iii) Though even according to the claimant, she had lost her salary only for five months, the Tribunal has committed error in awarding loss of income for a period of 16 months and 24 days. The award of Rs. 50,000/-towards loss of material life is unwarranted and duplication, as the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,00,00/-towards disability. Which also covers the loss of material life, if any. The award of interest at 8% p.a., on the compensation amount is improper and opposed to the well-settled principles of law; 5) On the other hand, Smt. Indhumathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant sought to justify the award to support the cross-objection, would submit as under: i) Cross-examination of PW.1 indicates that there was no negligence on the part of the claimant and in spite of the same, the Tribunal has erroneously attributed contributory negligence to the claimant to an extent of 20%. ii) The finding of the Tribunal that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant is erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record, as, in this regard, the Tribunal has failed to consider the fact that the jurisdictional police after investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the motor cab. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have held that the accident was solely due to the negligence of the driver of the motor cab. iii) The evidence of PW.1 read as a whole, establishes that for 17 months she could not attend to her work and she was on leave, therefore, the claimant has satisfactorily proved that she has suffered loss leave for a total period of 17 months and if her employer had paid salary for the period of 12 months during the leave period, since she had lost the leave, she is entitled for the loss of leave for 12 months and loss of salary for 5 months, as such, the Tribunal is justified in awarding loss of earning for a total period of 16 months 24 days and there is no ground to interfere with the said award passed by the Tribunal. iv) The award of Rs.50,000/-towards the loss of material pleasure in addition to physical disability of Rs.2,00,000/- is justified, regarding being had to the evidence on record. iv) The award of Rs.50,000/-towards the loss of material pleasure in addition to physical disability of Rs.2,00,000/- is justified, regarding being had to the evidence on record. The award of interest at 8% p.a., having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, is justified and it does not call for interface. v) Deduction of Rs.2,77,450/-from out of the medical expenses based on an unmarked document is not justified and the Tribunal ought not to have deducted the said sum merely on the contents of an unmarked document without there being any basis that the Company has paid the medical expenses to that extent. vi) The Tribunal having regard to the evidence on record that the claimant has suffered permanent disability leading to functional disability, ought to have awarded future loss of earning. 6) Miss. Preethi Komar, further contended that in the absence of any acceptable evidence that the claimant on account of the disability was unable to work, the Tribunal has rightly not granted any compensation towards loss of future earning. 7) We have bestowed our serious consideration to the submission made on both sides, perused the records and judgment under appeal. 8) From the records, it is evident that the parties are not in dispute with regard to the accident occurring as a result of collision between the two wheeler ridden by the claimant and the motor cab. It is the contention of the claimant that the accident was solely due to the negligence of the driver of the motor cab. However, the Tribunal having regard to the contents of the sketch drawn by the police, a copy of which has been marked as Ex.P4, has recorded the finding that the accident was due to the negligence of both the claimant and the driver of the motor cab and the Tribunal has assessed the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant at 20%. The Insurance Company is aggrieved by this finding on the ground that the accident was solely due to the negligence of the claimant herself in residing the two wheeler. The Insurance Company is aggrieved by this finding on the ground that the accident was solely due to the negligence of the claimant herself in residing the two wheeler. 9) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the claimant who was proceeding from North to South on her two wheeler, while taking right turn towards the West to go to the service road on the Western Side of the road, suddenly rushed on to the other side of the median without stopping her vehicle at the opening of the median and without looking for the oncoming vehicle from Southern side towards North on the other side of the median, rushed on to the Western side of the road, as a result, there was a collision between the motor cab and the two wheeler. Thus according to the learned counsel, the accident was solely due to the negligence of the claimant. 10) As could be seen from Ex.P4, the road at the place of accident was running from North to South with a median in the center. The width of the road on either side is 30 feet. The actual collision between two vehicles took place at a distance of 15 feet from the median towards the West of the road. This indicates that the claimant while taking a turn to her right side i.e., Western side of the road, proceeded at the opening of the median without stopping at the entrance of the opening and almost covered about 15 feet on the Western side of the median and the motor cab which was coming from the Southern side of the main road collided with the two wheeler which confronted with the motor cab at the middle point of the right side of the road which was the proper side of the motor cab. The claimant in her cross-examination admits the correctness of the contents of Ex.P4. In fact, the claimant herself has produced Ex.P4 to support her contention. Though the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant contended that the accident occurred at the opening of the road median while the claimant was waiting for crossing the road by placing her legs on either side of the vehicle, the sketch-Ex.P4 do not support the said contention. That was not even her say in the examination-in-chief filed by way of affidavit. Though the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant contended that the accident occurred at the opening of the road median while the claimant was waiting for crossing the road by placing her legs on either side of the vehicle, the sketch-Ex.P4 do not support the said contention. That was not even her say in the examination-in-chief filed by way of affidavit. On the other hand, the cursory look of the contents of Ex.P4 indicates the negligence on the part of the claimant. Neverthless. it cannot be said that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of Motor cab. From the contents of Ex.P4, it is clear that the two wheeler had covered almost 15 feet from median towards West. Therefore, the driver of Motor cab could see the two wheeler fairly from a longer distance, as such, he ought to have brought the Motor cab to a grinding halt. The fact that he collided with the two wheeler indicates that he could not control the vehicle. Therefore, he was also negligent to some extent and was also responsible for the accident. In the light of these facts, the Tribunal has rightly held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. However, in our opinion, the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the percentage of the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant only at 20%, though it was much more. 11) Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case and the contents of Ex.P4, we are of the opinion that the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant has to assessed at 50%. Thus the contributory negligence on the part of either side would be 50:50. To this extent, the finding of the Tribunal requires to be modified and it is accordingly modified. 12). It is in the evidence on record that for a total period of 16 months and 24 days after the accident, the claimant could not attend to her work. The claimant herself has stated in her evidence that she has been paid salary up to the end of December 2003 and for five months she was not paid her salary. The Tribunal, However, awarded a sum pf Rs. 4,15,302/- towards loss of earning for a period of 16 months and 24 days at the rate of 24,672/- p.m., which was her monthly salary. The Tribunal, However, awarded a sum pf Rs. 4,15,302/- towards loss of earning for a period of 16 months and 24 days at the rate of 24,672/- p.m., which was her monthly salary. Having regard to the fact that the claimant has received the salary for 12 months from her employer during the period of treatment, it was for the claimant to have proved that she had the facility of accumulating the leave and surrendering the same for encashment. However, the claimant has not produced any evidence in this regard. Even in her examination-in-chief filed by way of affidavit, the claimant has not stated that as per the terms and conditions of employment, she was entitled to accumulate the leave for any period and had the facility of surrendering the leave and get the salary for that period. Thus, there is no evidence to indicate that the claimant has suffered loss of leave. In the absence of any such evidence, in our opinion, the Tribunal is not justified in awarding, loss of income for the whole period of 16 months and 24 days. When the claimant has received salary from her employer for a period of 12 months during the period, though Miss. Indhumathi, learned counsel for the appellant, made spirited argument to contend that the claimant did lose monetary benefit for the said period as she was compelled to utilize all her accumulated leave for about 12 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled only for a sum of Rs. 1,23,360/-being the loss of pay for a period of five months as a against Rs. 4,15,302/- awarded by the Tribunal. 13) No doubt, the Tribunal in the judgment under appeal, after referring to the medical bills produced though found that the claimant has incurred total expenditure of Rs. 3,98,578/- towards treatment, the Tribunal noticing the contents of an un-marked document produced by the claimant, which was a letter from her employer, found that the employer of the claimant has paid a sum of Rs. 2,77,450/-towards the treatment and medical expenses. The Tribunal was of the view that the claimant has deliberately suppressed this fact and therefore, the Tribunal deducted a sum of Rs. 2,77,450/-from out of the total expenses incurred by her and as awarded a sum of Rs. 1,21,128/-towards medicals expenses amount towards food and nourishment expenses, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-under this head. The Tribunal was of the view that the claimant has deliberately suppressed this fact and therefore, the Tribunal deducted a sum of Rs. 2,77,450/-from out of the total expenses incurred by her and as awarded a sum of Rs. 1,21,128/-towards medicals expenses amount towards food and nourishment expenses, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-under this head. Before this Court, Smt. Indhumathi this sought to contend that though initially the Company had paid an amount of Rs. 2,77,450/- towards the medical expenses. Subsequently, the Company has recovered the amount from the claimant. In support of this contention, the claimant also sought to prove some additional documents along with a memo, before this Court. Of course, the additional documents cannot be produced along with a memo as and when the party wishes, more so in appeal. Even if we look into the copy of this letter, according to this letter, the Company has waived-off 50% of the medical expenses and sought to recover the balance amount of Rs. 1,36,500/-by monthly instalments at Rs. 5,000/-from September 2005. However, the claimant has not produced any documentary evidence even before this Court to indicate that the amount of Rs.1,36,500/- has been recovered by her employer from out of her monthly salary. Therefore, in the absence of any such evidence, in our opinion, the Tribunal is justified in deducting a sum of Rs.2,77,450/-from out of the medical expenses incurred by the claimant. Therefore, the award of Rs, 1,50,000/-towards medicals expenses is sustainable, and the rest of the amount cannot be allowed. 14). The claimant in her oral evidence has clearly stated that after the treatment, she resumed her work from June 2004 and worked in the said Company. This indicates that in spite of some disability incurred by her, the claimant continued to work in the said Company. The claimant has not produced any acceptable evidence to show that on account of this disability, her salary was in any way reduced by the employer nor any evidence was produced to show that she lost her future prospects in the said Company. The claimant has not produced any acceptable evidence to show that on account of this disability, her salary was in any way reduced by the employer nor any evidence was produced to show that she lost her future prospects in the said Company. On the other hand, the document now sought to be produced along with an application for production of additional evidence indicates that the claimant has resigned her job w.e.f 31st March 2007 for the reason best known to her, since no reason has been assigned in the said letter dated 02/02/2007 for resigning her job. There is no evidence on record placed by the claimant to show that she left the job on account of disability incurred. Therefore. In the absence of any evidence indicating that the disability incurred. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence indicating that the disability incurred by the claimant has come in the way of discharging her duties, in our opinion, the Tribunal is justified in not awarding any compensation towards loss of future earning. 15) The claimant in her evidence has asserted that on account of the disability she has suffered, she was not in a position to enjoy her material life in future in a normal manner, as such, there is loss of material pleasure. The Tribunal accepting this evidence of the claimant has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/-under this head in addition to award of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards physical disability, which is obviously towards loss of amenities on account of the disability. In the regard, though the contention of Miss. Preethi Komar, learned counsel for the Insurance Company is to the effect that there is duplication of award of compensation in awarding further sum of Rs. 50,000/-towards loss of marital bliss, when inevitably it has already been included in the universal quantification of the compensation under the head of loss of amenities on account of the disability at Rs. 2,00,000/-. Though this argument is quite attractive and appears to be so at the first place, on a deeper examination we find the contention is not really one acceptable and as there is a clear distinction between loss of amenities and deprivation of conjugal bliss to a married person. We say so for the reason that the loss of amenity is mere physical disability for a crippled person from enjoying normal physical facilities available to any normal human being. We say so for the reason that the loss of amenity is mere physical disability for a crippled person from enjoying normal physical facilities available to any normal human being. On the other hand, loss of marital bliss which is peculiar to a married person is one which is not merely as loss of oneself, but it is a loss which reflects on the other spouse also and a loss for one person invariably is the loss for both and could have its own repercussions on the marital life also. The loss of this nature is something over and above the mere loss of convenience and mere disability, but it is much more than loss of convenience. Therefore, we reject the said contention and affirm the award of Rs. 50,000/- under this head as awarded by the Tribunal. 16) The compensation awarded under other heads, in our opinion, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, is just and reasonable and do not call any interference by this Court. 17) The award of interest at the rate of 8% p.a., though appears to be little on the higher side. we having found that the claimant has also come up way of cross-objection in this appeal complaining of inadequacy of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, where she being not able to make headway on the other hand , the Insurance Company has able to succeed to a considerable extent and in this state of affairs, we do not propose further to produce the total compensation that has become available to the claimant by reducing the rate of interest therefore we leave the rate of interest at 8% p.a., as awarded by the Tribunal, undisturbed. It is for this reason, we reject the submission of Miss. Preethi Komar, learned counsel for the Insurance Company to reduce the rate of interest. 18) In view of the above, the compensation quantified by the Tribunal at Rs. 8,95,902/-gets reduced to Rs. 6,03,960/-which is rounded off to Rs. 6,04,000/- Out of this amount, Rs. 3,02,000/- is liable to be deducted towards contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and she is entitled to receive Rs. 3,02,000/-from the owner and insurer of the Motor Cab. 19) Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed in part. The cross-objection filed by the respondent/claimant is dismissed. 6,04,000/- Out of this amount, Rs. 3,02,000/- is liable to be deducted towards contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and she is entitled to receive Rs. 3,02,000/-from the owner and insurer of the Motor Cab. 19) Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed in part. The cross-objection filed by the respondent/claimant is dismissed. In modification of the judgment and award of the Tribunal. It is ordered that the contributory negligence on the part of the Respondent/claimant is to the extent of 50%. The compensation quantified by the Tribunal at Rs.8,95,902/-is reduced to Rs. 06,04,000/-. After deducting Rs. 3,02,000/- towards the contributory negligence of the claimant, claimant is entitled to receive Rs. 3,02,000/- with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition to the date of payment from the owner and insurer of Motor Cab jointly. However, the appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount with interest, if already not deposited, within six weeks from today. The statutory deposit, if any, made before this Court is ordered to be transmitted to the MACT concerned and the Tribunal is directed to disburse the compensation to the claimant only to the extent quantified in this judgment and if there is any excess, the same is ordered to be refunded to the Insurance Company.