JUDGMENT :- 1. The respondent herein / claimant filed a claim petition against the appellant herein stating that on 31.08.2004 at about 18.10 hours, the claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-31-9897 on the Panrutti Main Road, when at that point of time the Transport Corporation Bus bearing Registration No.TN-32-N-1207 had been driven by its driver in a negligent manner and dashed against the claimant, as a result he had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries, hence, the claim petition against the Transport Corporation and claimed compensation being a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. 2. The State Transport Corporation has filed a counter statement and rebutted the claim petition. The respondent denied that the accident had been committed by the driver of the bus. Actually on 31.08.2004 around 6.10 p.m. the claimant had driven his motorcycle in a reckless manner and suddenly turned right side and dashed against the bus, as a result, he invited the accident. The owner of the motorcycle and the Insurance Company are necessary parties in the said proceedings. The respondent denied the nature of injuries, the mode of treatment and period of treatment, age and occupation. 3. On verifying the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: (1) Due to whose negligence was the accident committed? and (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 4. On the side of the claimant, the Doctor and himself were examined and 8 documents were marked namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report; Ex.P3-Accident register; Ex.P4-Discharge summary; Ex.P5-Medical bills; Ex.P6-Salary Certificate; Ex.P7-Disability Certificate; and Ex.P8-X-ray. 5. PW1 had adduced evidence stating that on 31.08.2004, he was proceeding on his motorcycle on the Cuddalore-Panrutti Main Road on his left side, when at that point of time, the Transport Corporation Bus bearing Registration No.TN-32-N-1207 driven by its driver in a reckless manner and high speed and dashed against him, as a result, he was thrown out from the motorcycle and he had sustained bone fracture injuries on his right hand two fingers besides, he also sustained injuries on his left shoulder and on his left hand joint, left leg bone fracture and sustained injuries on his thigh. PW1 further stated that he was an employee attached to the Revenue Department as a Village Administrative Officer and had drawn a salary of Rs.11,053/- per month. PW1 further stated that he was an employee attached to the Revenue Department as a Village Administrative Officer and had drawn a salary of Rs.11,053/- per month. He had spent a sum of Rs.74,000/- towards medical expenses. Supporting his evidence, he had marked the above mentioned documents as exhibits. PW 2-Doctor had spoken on the same line of PW 1 and he had assessed the disability as 45%. 6. On considering the evidence of witnesses and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the exhibits marked by the claimant, the trial Court had awarded a sum of Rs.6,70,380/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Against the said award, the Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal and challenged the quantum of compensation and liability. The highly competent counsel vehemently argued that the claimant had ridden his motorcycle in a reckless manner behind the mini bus which was proceeding in the same road, all of a sudden he had turned the vehicle on his right side and dashed against the bus, as such the claimant had committed the said accident, therefore, the negligence has to be fashioned on the side of claimant instead of the driver of the bus. The Doctor had assessed the disability as 45% which is on the higher side since the claimant had sustained simple injuries. In the said accident, both the vehicles had been involved as such the insurer and owner of the motorcycle are necessary parties, but without adding them as necessary parties, the claim petition was proceeded with and passed the award against the Transport Corporation, which is not maintainable in the instant case. The highly competent counsel further argued that the trial Court had adopted the multiplier method and awarded a sum of Rs.5,78,880/- under the head of loss of earning, which is not pertinent in the instant case, since the claimant had sustained simple injuries and not being in condition of vegetative State. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to set aside the award. 7. The very competent counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries on his left shoulder, right hand and 4 fingers being fractured besides the claimant had sustained injuries on his left eye. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to set aside the award. 7. The very competent counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries on his left shoulder, right hand and 4 fingers being fractured besides the claimant had sustained injuries on his left eye. The claimant had been hospitalized at a private hospital, Cuddalore, thereafter, he was referred to MIOT Hospital, Chennai for specialized medical treatment, as such he had undergone treatment for about 16 days and had spent a sum of Rs.74,000/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal had not granted an adequate compensation under the relevant heads namely, pain and suffering, nutrition, attender charges, loss of earning during medial treatment, loss of amenities and discomfort besides the claimant's left eye vision has been impaired. The claimant had not attended his duty as a Village Administrative Officer for a long period, hence, he was on leave without pay. 8. Per contra, the highly competent counsel for the Transport Corporation pointed out that regarding eye-vision impairment no medical evidence or ophthalmologist was examined. Hence, there is a lacuna regarding medical evidence. 9. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusion arrived at regarding negligence and liability since F.I.R. has been registered against the driver of the bus. However, the quantum of compensation is on the higher side, since the Tribunal had adopted the multiplier method and awarded compensation a sum of Rs.5,78,880/- under the head of loss of earning, which is not pertinent in the instant case. Therefore, this Court reassesses the compensation as follows:- Rs.90,000/-under the head of disability; Rs.74,000/- under the head of medical expenses; Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.15,000/- towards transport; Rs.10,000/-towards nutrition; Rs.10,000/- against attender charges; Rs.30,000/- under the head of loss of earning; and Rs.91,190/- towards loss of amenities and loss of comfort. In total, this Court awards Rs.3,35,190/- as compensation as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. The rate of interest remains unaltered. As per this Court's direction, the appellant had already deposited 50% of the award amount with accrued interest thereon and costs. Therefore, as per the findings of this Court, the compensation amount had been deposited. 10. The rate of interest remains unaltered. As per this Court's direction, the appellant had already deposited 50% of the award amount with accrued interest thereon and costs. Therefore, as per the findings of this Court, the compensation amount had been deposited. 10. Now, the claimant is at liberty to withdraw the modified compensation amount as per this Court's findings which had been deposited already, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.675 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Second Additional Subordinate Court), Cuddalore, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order. 11. In the result, the above appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.675 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Second Additional Subordinate Court), Cuddalore, dated 17.09.2007, is modified. No costs.