Judgment :- 1. This Appeal filed by the Appellant-Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is directed against the judgment and award dated 03rd November, 2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chengalpattu in M.C.O.P.No.117 of 2002 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.28,11,000/- together with interest for the injuries sustained by the claimant-First Respondent in a motor vehicle accident. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. On 12.12.1999, the claimant-First Respondent was traveling in a bus bearing Reg. No.TN-32-N-0810 belonging to Appellant-Transport Corporation, which was proceeding to Pondicherry. When the bus was nearing Valliammai Polytechnic near Potheri along Chennai-Chengalpattu Main Road, another bus bearing Reg. No.TAI 4005 belonging to the Second Respondent was parked there due to mechanical defect. The driver of the Appellant-Transport Corporation drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the stationary bus, as a result of which, the claimant’s left hand was completely fractured and finally it was amputated. The claimant further sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Hence, a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- was claimed as compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant. 3. The Appellant-Transport Corporation, which was the First Respondent before the Tribunal, defended the case by denying the nature of the alleged injuries sustained by the claimant, the period of treatment, medical expenditure, disability, etc. According to the Transport Corporation, on the relevant date, the driver of the bus drove the bus slowly and cautiously according to the traffic rules and after giving signal overtook the stationary bus. At that time, a bus overtook this Appellant’s bus on the right side very closely. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent overtaking of the bus which came from behind. 4. The Tribunal framed the following points for consideration: (i) Whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus bearing Reg. No.TN-32-N-0810? (ii) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to any compensation, and if so, what is the quantum? 5. So far as Point No.1 is concerned, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Appellant-Corporation. No.TN-32-N-0810? (ii) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to any compensation, and if so, what is the quantum? 5. So far as Point No.1 is concerned, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Appellant-Corporation. So far as the second point, with regard to quantum of compensation, is concerned the Tribunal held that the claimant made out a case that his monthly earning was Rs.55,000/- as a Marine Radio Officer, and because of the injuries sustained by him, he lost his employment. A document (Ex.P-8) was filed to show that the claimant has got his name registered with the Special Employment Office for Physically Handicapped. The Income Tax Returns, which are marked as Exs.P-15 & P-16, was filed to show that his annual salary for the year 1998-1999 was Rs.5,87,253/-. The Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that normally the employment, as a seafarer, is given for six months and therefore, the annual income of the claimant would come to Rs.3,30,000/-. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 10 and assessed the compensation amount at Rs.33,00,000/- on the ground of permanent disability. The Tribunal, further, held that the clamant suffered 80% permanent partial disability and therefore, as per, Part II of Schedule I of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act), the loss of future earning comes to Rs.26,40,000/-. The Tribunal, further, awarded Rs.25,000/- each for Permanent Partial Disability and for Pain and Sufferings and also Rs.1,20,000/- for Medical Expenses, and finally, the Tribunal held that the compensation of Rs.28,11,000/- is payable to the claimant along with interest at 7.5%. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Transport Corporation has assailed the impugned order as illegal, and mainly against the evidence brought on record. Learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has not correctly assessed the compensation amount. 7. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that the first error committed by the Tribunal is in calculating the compensation as per Part II of Schedule I of the Act. Section 4 of the Act, lays down the provision for calculation of compensation. The relevant portion of Section 4, is quoted herein below: “Amount of Compensation. 7. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that the first error committed by the Tribunal is in calculating the compensation as per Part II of Schedule I of the Act. Section 4 of the Act, lays down the provision for calculation of compensation. The relevant portion of Section 4, is quoted herein below: “Amount of Compensation. – (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely: (a) Where death results from the injury an amount equal to fifty per cent of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by the relevant factor or an amount of eighty thousand rupees whichever is more (b) Where permanent total disablement results from the injury an amount equal to sixty per cent of the amount or an amount of ninety thousand rupees whichever is more Explanation 1. – For the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b), “relevant factor”, in relation to a workman means the factor specified in the second column of Schedule IV against the entry in the first column of that Schedule specifying the number of years which are the same as the completed years of the age of the workman on his last birthday immediately Preceding the date on which the compensation fell due. Explanation II – Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed four thousand rupees his monthly wages for the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b) shall be deemed to be four thousand rupees only (c) Where permanent partial disablement results from the injury (i) in the case of an injury specified in Part II of Schedule I, such percentage of the compensation which mould have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is specified therein as being the percentage of the loss of earning capacity caused by that injury, and (ii) in the case of an injury not specified in Schedule I, such percentage of the compensation payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is proportionate to the loss of earning capacity (as assessed by the qualified medical practitioner) permanently caused by the injury 8. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is manifestly clear that if the compensation is calculated on the basis of Section 4 of the Act, together with Explanation, and the relevant factor mentioned in Part II of Schedule I of the Act, the compensation amount cannot be Rs.26,50,000/-. If we take the help of the Act for the purpose of assessment of compensation, the amount payable to the claimant for the amputation of left hand cannot be more than Rs.7,50,000/-. If, on this amount, further compensation towards Medical Expenses, Pain and Sufferings and Disability, as awarded by the Tribunal, is calculated the total amount comes to Rs.9,20,000/-. However, taking into consideration the facts of the case and the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, we are of the view that compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees ten lakhs only) will meet the ends of justice, and the same shall be just and reasonable compensation. 9. We, therefore, allow this Appeal in part, and reduce the compensation amount to Rs.10,00,000/-. Needless to say that this compensation amount shall carry interest, as awarded by the Tribunal. No costs.