Judgment :- 1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/second respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 24.03.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.426 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Udumalaipet, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,70,341/- together with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/second respondent has filed the above appeal praying to scale down the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 23.04.2000, at about 01.30 p.m. the petitioner along with one Veeran @ Veeramuthu returning from Sangampalayam to Anthiyur, by the TVS50 motorcycle bearing registration No.TN41 A1678, after attending their work as loading the Tractor. While they were nearing Sangampalayam Pirivu on Sangampalayam to Gomangalam road, the bus bearing registration No.TN38 N0254, belonging to the second respondent Corporation, came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the petitioner. Due to which, the petitioner got thrown out onto the road along with the motorcycle and sustained head injuries and fracture injuries in the leg and multiple grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the said accident, he was was taken to Government Hospital, Pollachi and C.M.C.Coimbatore then he admitted in Ramakrishna Hospital for better treatment, wherein major operation was conducted in head and leg and had taken treatment for a period of one month as inpatient. The accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent Corporation bus. As such, he claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest before the Tribunal. 4. The first and second respondents, in their Counter had resisted the claim petition. These respondents have categorically denied the age, income and occupation of the claimant. The allegation of the claimant that the first respondent had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the petitioners motorcycle, is false. The respondent further stated that the claim case was a misconceived one. Actually, the first respondent took the trip from Pollachi to Kozhikuttai on 23.04.2000 at about 12.40 p.m. The bus was driven by the first respondent within the traffic rules and regulations. The claimant had ridden his two wheeler at a high speed and in a negligent manner and caused the accident. Actually, the first respondent took the trip from Pollachi to Kozhikuttai on 23.04.2000 at about 12.40 p.m. The bus was driven by the first respondent within the traffic rules and regulations. The claimant had ridden his two wheeler at a high speed and in a negligent manner and caused the accident. The first respondent/driver had noticed the rough riding by the claimant and turned the bus on the right side and dashed against the bridge and came to a halt. As such, the respondents are not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 5. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely: (i) Whether the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, If so what is the quantum of compensation? 6. On the petitioners side, the claimant himself was examined as PW1, one Veeran was examined as PW2, Dr.Paramasivan was examined as PW3 and one V.Palanisamy was examined as PW4 and eight documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P8 namely Ex.P1-First Information Report, Ex.P2-Findings of the Tribunal, Ex.P3-Medical Bills, Ex.P4-Discharge Summary, Ex.P5-Driving licence, Ex.P6-Disability Certificate, Ex.P7-Documentary evidence of the Future medical expenses, Ex.P8-Scan Reports. On the second respondents side one Thangavelu, the driver of the bus, was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked. 7. The claimant, PW1 had adduced evidence stating that the pillion rider one Veeran and himself had travelled on a TVS50 motorcycle bearing registration No.TN41 A1678, towards Anthiyur from east to west. At that time, the respondent Corporation bus was coming from south to north direction at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler. In the result, both the travellers had sustained injuries. Immediately, the PW1 was taken to the Government Hospital, Pollachi, after preliminary treatment, he was referred to Coimbatore Ramakrishnan Hospital. Further, he adduced evidence stating that in the said accident, he sustained head injury and bone fracture on his leg. Surgical operation was also conducted on his head as well on his leg. Supporting his case he had marked Exs.P1 and P2 namely First Information Report and Judgment copy respectively. After considering the PW1s oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the first respondent was the cause for the accident. Surgical operation was also conducted on his head as well on his leg. Supporting his case he had marked Exs.P1 and P2 namely First Information Report and Judgment copy respectively. After considering the PW1s oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the first respondent was the cause for the accident. Therefore, the second respondent is liable to pay compensation. PW1, further adduced evidence stating that he was admitted in the hospital on 23.04.2000 as inpatient and discharged on 09.05.2000. Supporting this contention, he had also marked Ex.P4-Medical Discharge Summary. PW3-Dr.Parasivam, Medical Practitioner at Coimbatore, Ramakrishna Hospital, had adduced evidence stating that the claimants right side brain had become blood clotted, besides blood also oozing. Right leg libia bone had fractured. He examined the claimant and assessed the disability of the claimant as 25%. He has also adduced evidence that the claimant requires one more operation, for which, the medical expenses to the extent of Rs.50,000/- will be required. 8. After considering the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and documents, which were marked by the claimant, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation as follows: i. Rs.58,341/- under the head of medical expenses, ii. Rs.20,000/- under the head of permanent disability, iii. Rs.10,000/- under the head of nourishment, iv. Rs.10,000/- under the head of attender charges, v. Rs.20,000/- under the head of pain and suffering, vi. Rs.2,000/- under the head of transport expenses, vii. Rs.50,000/- under the head of future medical expenses, In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,70,341/-as compensation to the petitioner, 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. Further, the Tribunal directed the second respondent to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.1,70,341/- 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, within 24.04.2004. In turn, the half of the said amount to be deposited, under a fixed deposit scheme, in a nationalised bank for a period of three years and the claimant was permitted to withdraw the remaining amount, accordingly ordered. 9. Aggrieved by that award and decree, the appellant/second respondent has filed the above appeal praying to scale down the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. 10. 9. Aggrieved by that award and decree, the appellant/second respondent has filed the above appeal praying to scale down the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- under the head of attender charges and nutrition, are all on higher side. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-under the head of future medical expenses, there is no documentary evidence. Therefore, he prays to scale down the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent argued that the claimant sustained head injuries, operation was also conducted and on the operated region there is blood clotted, besides blood also oozing. This evidence was also adduced by the Doctor, after examining the claimant. Hence, further medical expenses is necessary and the other heads are also on the lower side, including transport expenses. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and the award and decree passed by the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the compensation amount passed by the Tribunal under the various heads are reasonable, except the future medical expenses, which is on the higher side. Hence, this Court scales down the said amount from Rs.50,000/-to Rs.35,000/-. After deducting the difference ie.Rs.15,000/-, this Court awards a total sum of Rs.1,55,341/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, as observed by the Tribunal, this Court confirms the same. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the entire compensation amount has already been deposited into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.426 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Udumalaipet. 14. As the accident had happened in the year 2000, this Court permits the claimant to withdraw the compensation amount ie.Rs.1,55,341/-with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.426 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Udumalaipet, after filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law, subject to deduction of withdrawals, if any. Likewise, the appellant is also at liberty to withdraw the excess compensation amount ie.Rs.15,000/-with accrued interest thereon, after observing necessary formalities of the Court below. 15. Likewise, the appellant is also at liberty to withdraw the excess compensation amount ie.Rs.15,000/-with accrued interest thereon, after observing necessary formalities of the Court below. 15. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the Award and Decree, dated 24.03.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.426 of 2001, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Udumalaipet is modified. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.