Judgment :- The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 30.09.2003, made in M.C.O.P.No.151 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Cheyyar, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,45,000/- together 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, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner Gnanamurugan, aged about 25 years, was travelling in the respondent bus bearing registration No.TN23 N0784 in order to go to Chennai on 30.06.1997. While, the respondents bus proceeding towards Kancheepuram town came and stopped at the Collectors Office at about 10.30 a.m. At that time, several passengers were standing in the said bus. Some of the passengers, who were standing behind the petitioner and since they wanted to get down from the bus, the petitioner also got down along with the others and then re-boarded the bus. When all such passengers got down from the bus, the petitioner in order to re-board the bus for further travel scrambled up, but when the petitioner was trying to enter inside, the conductor of the bus, blew his whistle and the driver started the bus speedily even without listening whether all the passengers got down and those who got back inside of the bus. As a result of his action, the petitioner lost his grip on the overhead standing rod and fell down on the road and as a result of which he sustained fracture of his left leg and sustained other grievious injuries on his body. 4. Immediately, the petitioner was rushed to the Government Hospital at Kancheepuram for treatment and was admitted as an inpatient from 30.06.1997 to 10.07.1997, thereafter, he took treatment at the Royapettah Hospital from 11.07.1997 to 22.10.1997. Subsequently, he is still receiving medical treatment. Due to this accident, the claimant is suffering pain besides being unable to walk and attend to normal activities. The said accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Hence, the claimant is claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-/-with interest against the respondent/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., 5. Due to this accident, the claimant is suffering pain besides being unable to walk and attend to normal activities. The said accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Hence, the claimant is claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-/-with interest against the respondent/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., 5. Regarding the said accident, a criminal case has been registered by the Kancheepuram Police Station in Crime No.987/1997 under Sections 279 and 338 of I.P.C. 6. The respondent has filed a counter statement and denied the age and income of the claimant and also the academic qualification of the claimant. 7. On 30.06.1997, the Corporation Bus plying on route No.335, bearing registration No.TN23 N0784, had started at 6.40 a.m. from Cheyyar bus stop travelling to Chennai. The driver of the bus adhered to all the traffic rules correctly. While the driver stopped the bus at Kancheepuram Collectors Office busstop, for alighting of the passengers and boarding of passengers into the bus, after which the conductor blew the whistle. The bus travelled some distance, when the passengers inside the bus shouted to the driver to stop the vehicle, immediately the driver stopped the bus and got down to check the rear side of the bus and found the claimant prostrate on the road unconscious. Immediately, the patient was admitted at the Kancheepuram Government Hospital. This accident was caused due to the negligence of the passenger. Further, the respondent has stated that it was not the fault of the driver. 8. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely: (i) Was the accident caused due to the negligence of the driver of the respondents bus? (ii) Was the respondent liable to pay the compensation to the claimant as claimed? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 9. 8. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely: (i) Was the accident caused due to the negligence of the driver of the respondents bus? (ii) Was the respondent liable to pay the compensation to the claimant as claimed? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 9. On the petitioners side two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and 97 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P97 namely Ex.P1 is the FIR, Ex.P2 is the Medical Discharge Summary issued by the Government Hospital, Royapettah, Ex.P3 is the Test Report issued by Malar Hospital, Chennai, Ex.P4 is the Discharge Summary issued by Malar Hospital, Chennai, Ex.P5 is the Admission and Discharge Certificate issued by Government Hospital, Kancheepuram, Exs.P6 to P17 are the Medical Bill series, Ex.P18 to P31 are the Medical Bill series from Malar Hospital, Ex.P32 to 74 are the Medical Bill series for buying medicines by the petitioner, Ex.P75 is the Bill for buying water by the petitioner, Exs.P76 to 91 Bill series issued after the treatment, Ex.P92 is the Bill issued by Malar Hospital, Exs.P93 to P96 are the receipts issued by Ortho Doctor and Ex.P97 is the Permanent Disability Certificate. On the respondents side one witness was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked. 10. The petitioner has stated in his evidence that on 30.06.1997 at about 6.40 a.m. he had travelled in the respondents bus from Cheyyar to Chennai. When the bus stopped at the Kancheepuram Collectors Office at about 7.30 a.m. for alighting passengers at this destination, the petitioner for the convenience of other passengers also got down from the bus and re-boarded the bus to continue the journey. However, the driver of the bus started the vehicle with a heavy jerk and at high speed, so much so, the petitioner lost his balance and fell down from the bus, causing him grievious injuries due to the rear wheel of the bus running over his left leg. The petitioner was immediately admitted into the Government Hospital at Kancheepuram and thereafter, he underwent treatment at Royapettah Government Hospital, where he was an inpatient from 11.07.1997 to 22.10.1997. As such, the accident was admitted. The FIR was registered against the driver of the bus. The said driver of the bus was examined as RW1. The petitioner was immediately admitted into the Government Hospital at Kancheepuram and thereafter, he underwent treatment at Royapettah Government Hospital, where he was an inpatient from 11.07.1997 to 22.10.1997. As such, the accident was admitted. The FIR was registered against the driver of the bus. The said driver of the bus was examined as RW1. As per documentary evidence and oral evidence of the petitioner the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the said accident happened due to the rashness and negligence by the driver. 11. The PW1 has further adduced evidence that his left leg bone was fractured in the said accident and he was admitted as inpatient at the Kancheepuram Government Hospital for a period from 30.06.1997 to 10.07.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner was undergoing treatment as an inpatient at Royapettah Government Hospital for the period from 11.07.1997 to 22.07.1997. Surgery was conduced on his left leg and a steel plate was fixed to his leg bone. Thereafter, he confirmed treatment at Malar Hospital, Chennai. Due to the said accident, the petitioner is undergoing pain and suffering and unable to walk. Further, he is unable to have any sex relationship as a result of his injury and permanently lost his pleasure of life. 12. The PW2, Dr.Shanmuga Sundaram, had adduced evidence that the petitioner sustained 30% disability for which he issued the Disability Certificate and the same was marked as Ex.P97. The petitioner further stated in his evidence that he studied the DEE Course in Electrical Engineering. But, has not produced any documentary evidence for his employment and income. Even though, the Tribunal has fixed the income of the claimant as Rs.1,500/- per month and considering the petitioners age and percentage of the Disability Certificate, the Tribunal had adopted a multiplier 18 and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,13,400/- under the head of loss of income. Further, the Tribunal allotted Rs.31,600/- for medical expenses on the basis of the medical bill series. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,45,000/-together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. 13. Further, the Tribunal allotted Rs.31,600/- for medical expenses on the basis of the medical bill series. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,45,000/-together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. 13. The Tribunal further ordered to the respondent Corporation to deposit the said award amount, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.151 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Cheyyar, within a period of two months, in turn the said amount to be deposited into a nationalised bank for a period of three years. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the accident had occurred due to the negligent act of the injured, who attempted to re-enter into the moving bus. As such, the injured person is responsible for the said accident. The Tribunal has accepted the 35% disability as an erroneous one. A sum of Rs.1,45,000/-awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.31,600/- towards medical expenses is unwarranted. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that without an income proof of the injured person, the award of the compensation is erroneous. The multiplier method is not applicable in this case. The quantum of compensation is on the higher side. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, scrutiny of the findings of the Tribunal and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal had not given award under the heads of nutrition, transport and pain and suffering etc., Considering the nature of injuries mode of treatment ie.surgery done on his left leg of the claimant and considering that a steel rod had been fixed on the left leg, besides period of treatment and the age of the claimant was 26, the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.1,13,400/- under the head of loss of income, this was awarded on the basis of the multiplier method, which is proper. For medical expenses, a sum of Rs.31,600/-was awarded, on the basis of medical series, this is also pertinent. For medical expenses, a sum of Rs.31,600/-was awarded, on the basis of medical series, this is also pertinent. In total the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, in M.C.O.P.No.151 of 1999, which is fair and equitable. 16. At the time of admission on 23.03.2005, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant/Transport Corporation to deposit the entire compensation amount including the interest and costs, to the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.151 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Cheyyar. This Court permitted the respondent to withdraw 50% of the amount awarded by the Tribunal, together with proportionate interest and costs. 17. As the accident happened in the year 1997, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the balance compensation amount, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.151 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Cheyyar, after filing necessary payment out application, in accordance with law, subject to deduction of withdrawals, if any. 18. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Award and Decree, dated 30.09.2003, in M.C.O.P.No.151 of 1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Cheyyar, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.