Judgment 1. The appellant/3rd respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A. (MD).No.107 of 2009, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.737 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Tirunelveli. 2. The petitioner, has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.737 of 2005, claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-from the respondents, for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident. It was submitted that on 16.08.2004, the petitioner along with one Glory Padma had travelled as passengers in the 2nd respondents auto bearing registration No.TN-74C-5315, from Pattarpuram towards Valliyoor. At about 12.15 p.m., when the said auto was proceeding on the Nagercoil to Tirunelveli main road, on the east of the Kankardia school, towards south, a motor cycle which was proceeding from east towards west and driven by its rider at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner was coming in the opposite direction and the auto driver in order to avoid the motor cycle had turned the auto towards west and stopped the auto. At that time, the 1st respondent's bus bearing registration No.TN-74N-0792, coming from south towards north and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the auto. In the impact, the petitioner sustained severe injuries on his right arm and right leg. He was immediately admitted at the Nagercoil Thiraviyum hospital and took treatment as an inpatient. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the 1st , 2nd and 3rd respondents, who are the owner of the bus, owner of the auto and the insurer of the auto involved in the accident. 3. The 1st respondent in his counter has submitted that the petitioner should prove the averments regarding age, income, occupation, manner of accident through oral and documentary evidence. It was submitted that the 1st respondent's bus driver had driven the bus in a careful and cautious manner and that the auto driver had suddenly come on to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the left side of the bus and that the accident was caused only due to the negligence of the auto driver. It was submitted that the negligence of the auto driver could easily be seen on examination of the rough sketch. It was submitted that the negligence of the auto driver could easily be seen on examination of the rough sketch. It was submitted that the driver of the 1st respondents bus had lodged a complaint at the Tirunelveli Police Station on 24.08.2004 regarding the accident. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. The 3rd respondent in his counter has submitted that even as per the F.I.R, the complaint has been lodged only against the 1st respondent. The averments in the claim regarding age, income, occupation of petitioner, nature of injuries sustained by him, medical expenses incurred were also not admitted. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 5. On the petitioners side, two witnesses were examined and eleven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P11 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-copy of observation register; Ex.P3-rough sketch; Ex.P4-copy of motor vehicle Inspector's report; Ex.P5-copy of wound certificate; Ex.P6-wound certificate issued by Thiraviyum hospital; Ex.P7-medical bills issued at Thiraviyum hospital; Ex.P8-medical bills; Ex.P9-medical prescriptions; Ex.P10-disability certificate; Ex.P11-x rays. On the respondents side, one witness was examined as RW.1 and one exhibit namely the judgment of the Fast Track Court No. II, Tirunelveli, was marked as exhibit R1. 6. PW.1, the petitioner had adduced evidence, which is corroborative of the statements made by him in the complaint regarding the manner of accident. It is seen that the F.I.R had been registered at the Valliyur Police Station based on the complaint given by the driver of the 2nd respondents auto. It has been mentioned in the F.I.R that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the drivers of the 1st and 2nd respondent's vehicles. On scrutiny of Ex.P2, observation mahazar and Ex.P3-rough sketch, it is seen that at the place of occurrence of accident, there are no curves in the road and that the road has been laid on a flat stretch of land and as such there are no impediments in the road to obstruct the vision of the 1st respondent's driver. On scrutiny of Ex.P2, observation mahazar and Ex.P3-rough sketch, it is seen that at the place of occurrence of accident, there are no curves in the road and that the road has been laid on a flat stretch of land and as such there are no impediments in the road to obstruct the vision of the 1st respondent's driver. On scrutiny of Ex.P4, the motor vehicle Inspector's report, it is seen that both the 1st respondent's bus and the 2nd respondent's auto had been damaged and that there were no mechanism defects in the said vehicle's. Hence, the Tribunal, on observing the damages caused to both the 1st respondents bus and 2nd respondents auto opined that the accident had been caused by the negligent and rash and driving of the drivers of both the vehicles and held the 1st respondent liable to pay 25% of the compensation assessed and the 2nd and 3rd respondents liable to pay 75% of the compensation assessed. 7. RW.1, the driver of the 1st respondent's bus had adduced evidence that on 16.08.2004, when he was driving the bus bearing registration No.TN-74N-0792, from Nagercoil towards Tirunelveli and at about 11.50 a.m., when he was nearing the Kankardia School, after crossing the Valliyur Bus Stand, he was driving the bus in a careful and cautious manner from south towards north and at that point of time, he had seen the auto coming in the opposite direction from North towards South and that the auto driver, without giving any indication had suddenly turned his auto towards the right and that on seeing this, he had applied the brakes and stopped the bus on the left side of the road, but inspite of this, the auto driver was unable to control the speed of his auto and dashed his auto against the left side of the road, but inspite of this, the auto driver was unable to control the speed of his auto and dashed his auto against the left side bumper of his bus and caused the accident. Though, he had deposed that the criminal case filed against him had been closed, he had admitted in his cross examination that he had not been closed, he had admitted in his cross examination that he had not produced this document either in this case or in the case filed against him in the Fast Track Court No.2. Though, he had deposed that the criminal case filed against him had been closed, he had admitted in his cross examination that he had not been closed, he had admitted in his cross examination that he had not produced this document either in this case or in the case filed against him in the Fast Track Court No.2. He had also admitted that his firm had not filed any case demanding compensation for the damages caused to the bus. 8. The Tribunal, on considering the oral and documentary evidence held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the drivers of the 1st respondents bus and the 2nd respondent's auto. 9. PW.1, has further adduced evidence that due to the accident, he had sustained fractures in his right arm and right leg and right wrist and also sustained lacerated injuries all over his body. He had deposed that immediately after the accident, he had been admitted at the Thiraviyum Hospital, Nagercoil and that he had been treated as an inpatient from 16.08.2004 to 05.09.2004 at Thiraviyum Hospital, Nagercoil, wherein a surgery was done to amputate the portion of his right arm below his right wrist which had been badly crushed. He deposed that another surgery was done to set right the fractures sustained in his right leg and that a steel plate with screw were fixed in the fractured area. He deposed that he had subsequently received treatment at the same hospital from 28.12.2004 to 06.01.2005, as an inpatient and subsequently as an outpatient and that he had spent of Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses. 10. PW.2, Dr. Ramaguru, had adduced evidence that he had examined the petitioner on 29.08.2007 and found that the petitioners right hand palm below his right wrist had been amputated and that the 3rd and 4th rib bone in the right side chest of the petitioner had been fractured. He deposed that the petitioner had sustained fractures in his right leg below the knee and that there were no muscles in this portion of his right leg and that his right leg had been bent and infected. He deposed that the movements in the petitioners right leg had been restricted and that the right leg had lost its strength. He deposed that the petitioner had sustained fractures in his right leg below the knee and that there were no muscles in this portion of his right leg and that his right leg had been bent and infected. He deposed that the movements in the petitioners right leg had been restricted and that the right leg had lost its strength. He deposed that the petitioner had sustained 100% disability in the accident and in support of his evidence, he had marked ex.P10-disability certificate and ex.P11-x rays. 11. The Tribunal, on observing that no documentary evidence had been marked to prove that the petitioner was working as a mason and earning Rs.4,000/- per month, held that the notional income of the petitioner could only be taken as Rs.1,500/-per month. On adopting a multiplier of 17' as was relevant to the age of the petitioner (i.e., 21 years) the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,06,000/-(Rs.1,500/-x12x17) as compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity and loss of income. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-under the head of pain and suffering; Rs.74,596/- for medical expenses incurred as per Exs.P7 and P8, medical bills; Rs.5,000/- towards nutrition; Rs.5,000/- towards transport expenses and Rs.25,000/-under the head of mental agony and shock. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,65,596/- as compensation to the petitioner. 12. The Tribunal directed the 1st respondent to deposit 25% of the compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. The 2nd and 3rd respondents were directly to pay 75% of the compensation assessed, either jointly or severally, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents were further directed to deposit the said compensation together with interest within one month from the date of its order. 13. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the 3rd respondent/New India Assurance Company Limited, Tirunelveli, has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the tribunal erred in fastening 75% liability on the appellant since there is ample evidence to show that the 2nd respondents driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the tribunal erred in fastening 75% liability on the appellant since there is ample evidence to show that the 2nd respondents driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. It was contended that the tribunal failed to note that the accident was due to a head on collision and that as the 2nd respondent's bus is a heavy vehicle and the insured vehicle is a light vehicle and in such circumstances, more liability should be fixed on the transport corporation. It was pointed out that the tribunal failed to note that the driver of the auto went to the west side of the road only to avert the accident with the two wheeler, who came in a rash and negligent manner and that person and his insurer were not impleaded in the claim petition. It was also contended that the tribunal erred in holding that the claimant has suffered 100% disability. It was contended that the award granted as compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, transportation, extra nourishment and mental agony are excessive and have to be modified. Hence, it was prayed to set aside the award passed by the tribunal and dismiss the claim as against the appellant. 14. The learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that the claimant had sustained bone fracture injuries in the said accident. He was hospitalised and received treatment as an inpatient from 16.08.2004 to 05.09.2004. The claimant's right hand bone and right leg bone were fractured and broken into pieces. The surgical operation was conducted on his right leg and screws were fixed in the operated area. The claimant had spent about of Rs.1,25,000/- towards medical expenses. The doctor also had assessed the disability as 100%. The Tribunal had not granted adequate compensation under the head of nutrition, transport and loss of earning. The learned counsel further submits that the tribunal had fixed the liability in the ratio 75%:25% after recording evidence and on the basis of rough sketch. Therefore, the Tribunal had properly assessed the issues regarding liability and quantum of compensation. 15. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the Tribunal had fixed the liability appropriately on the basis of F.I.R and sketch and after scrutiny of findings of criminal court. 16. Therefore, the Tribunal had properly assessed the issues regarding liability and quantum of compensation. 15. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the Tribunal had fixed the liability appropriately on the basis of F.I.R and sketch and after scrutiny of findings of criminal court. 16. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on all sides and on perusing the impugned award of the Triibunal, this court does not find any discrepancy in the said award. Further, the claimants right hand had been amputated upto wrist level. Besides, this the claimants right shoulder joint had been severed and 4 rib bones had been fractured and his right leg muscles had been damaged completely. Considering the grievous nature of injuries and multiple bone fractures sustained by the claimant, this Court declines to interfere with the quantum of compensation. On 13.04.2009, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit the entire award amount. Now, this Court, directs the appellant to comply with the impugned order forthwith, if it had not been complied with already. 17. After such deposit has been made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.737 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Tirunelveli, after filing memo, along with a copy of this order. 18. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in MM.C.O.P.No.737 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Tirunelveli, is confirmed, dated 23.01.2008 No costs.