JUDGMENT 1. The claimant / 1st respondent herein had filed a claim petition against the appellant herein and others stating that he was walking on the Sangagiri Main Road on 06.07.2005 at about 9.45 p.m. and at that point of time the bus bearing Registration No.TN30-Y-2225 came behind him and hit against the Mini Auto bearing Registration No.TN-30-Y-8929 which came near and behind him and hit against him, as a result he had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries, hence he has claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. 2. The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited / 4th respondent had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent denied the accident, age, occupation, nature of injuries, mode of treatment, medical bills and disability. The respondent further stated that actually the accident had been committed by the driver of the bus, who had driven the bus in a reckless manner and at high speed and dashed against the Mini Auto, as a result the Auto hit against the claimant. The F.I.R. has been registered against the driver of the bus, as such the 1st and 2nd respondents being owner and insurer of the bus are liable to pay compensation. The driver of the Mini Auto was possession a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The respondent further denied that the compensation amount is an excessive one. 3. The 2nd respondent had filed a counter statement and denied the liability. The respondent stated that the Mini Auto had committed the said accident, the Auto suddenly turned to the right side for overtaking, at that time the bus had been driven by its driver on his right side in order to avoid an accident, but the Auto came and hit against the left side corner of the bus. The respondent denied the age, income and occupation of the claimant. 4. After considering the averments of all the parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: (1) Whether the accident had been committed by the drivers of the 1st and 3rd respondents in a rash and negligent manner? and (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 5. 4. After considering the averments of all the parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: (1) Whether the accident had been committed by the drivers of the 1st and 3rd respondents in a rash and negligent manner? and (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 5. On the side of the claimant, he was examined as PW1 and the Doctor was examined as PW2, 10 documents were marked as exhibits P1 to P10 namely, Ex.P1-F.I.R.; Ex.P2-Wound Certificate; Ex.P3-Motor Vehicle Inspector's report; Ex.P4-Charge sheet; Ex.P5-Copy of Judgment; Ex.P6-Rough sketch; Ex.P7-Medical bills series; Ex.P8-Discharge summary; Ex.P9-Disability certificate and Ex.P10-X-ray series. On the side of the respondent, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 6. PW1 had adduced evidence stating that on 06.07.2005 at about 9.45 p.m. he was walking on the main road towards Salem from Sangagiri on his left side and at that time the Mini Auto bearing Registration No.TN-30-Y-8929 came behind him on the same direction, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-30-Y-2225 came behind the Mini Auto at high speed and in a reckless manner and overtook the Mini Auto, as a result the bus dashed against the right side of the Mini Auto, the Mini Auto dashed against him. The F.I.R. has been registered regarding the said accident. PW1 further stated that in the said accident he had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries and he had been taken to the Government Hospital, Erode, wherein preliminary treatment had been given, thereafter he was referred to Arvind Hospital, Namakkal, wherein he had undergone a surgical operation on his left leg in the bone-fracture area. PW1 further stated that for a period of 20 days he had been hospitalized as an inpatient and had spent a sum of Rs.22,716/- towards medical expenses. He further stated that a steel rod has been fixed with screws in the operated area, which has not been properly fixed and has to be refixed in a proper manner, as such he is experiencing pain continuously and he is unable to walk and stand for a short time. Still he is undergoing treatment as an outpatient. At the time of accident, he was doing the job of a sculptor and earning Rs.5,000/- per month, after the accident, he is incapacitated to do his normal avocation. 7. Still he is undergoing treatment as an outpatient. At the time of accident, he was doing the job of a sculptor and earning Rs.5,000/- per month, after the accident, he is incapacitated to do his normal avocation. 7. PW2 Doctor had adduced evidence stating that the claimant had sustained two bone fracture injuries on his left thigh and below the left knee. The claimant had undergone a surgical operation for bone fracture. His left leg had been bent upto 10° and he is able to bend his left leg upto 150° instead of a normal movement of 170°. PW2 further stated that the claimant's left thigh muscles have lost its strength and he had assessed the disability as 35%. 8. On considering the evidence of claimant's side and on perusing the documentary evidence, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,46,916/- with interest at the rate of 7.5%, further the said compensation amount payable by all the respondents jointly and equally. Against the said award the appellant herein has filed the above appeal. The highly competent counsel contended that actually the accident had been committed by the driver of the Mini Auto, who hit the claimant and also dashed against the bus on its left side, it is also seen from the rough sketch. The Doctor had assessed the disability as 35%, which is on the higher side, further the Tribunal had adopted the multiplier method and granted compensation a sum of Rs.2,14,200/-under the head of disability which is not pertinent in the instant case. The very competent counsel further contended that the entire liberty has to be fastened on the 1st and 2nd respondents who are the owner and insurer of the bus, but the Tribunal had erroneously fastened the liability on the appellant herein, therefore, the learned counsel entreats the Court to set aside the award. 9. The learned counsel for the claimant contended that as per F.I.R. and rough sketch, it is seen that the accident had been committed by the driver of both vehicles namely, Mini Auto and Bus. As such, the Tribunal had come to an appropriate conclusion that the accident had been committed by both vehicle drivers in a reckless manner, after seeing the tyre mark of both vehicles. The 1st and 2nd respondents had admitted their liability. As such, the Tribunal had come to an appropriate conclusion that the accident had been committed by both vehicle drivers in a reckless manner, after seeing the tyre mark of both vehicles. The 1st and 2nd respondents had admitted their liability. The claimant had been involved as a Sculptor but after the accident he is unable to pursue his normal avocation. The claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries and he had undergone a surgical operation on his left thigh and on his left leg below the knee. In the operation area a steel rod had been fixed with screws which is not properly fixed in the operated area, therefore, a re-operation is necessary for re-fixing the steel rod, the same has been narrated by his Doctor in his evidence after examining the claimant. The claimant had sustained 35% disability and he had spent a sum of Rs.22,716/- towards medical expenses and he had been hospitalized for a period of 20 days as inpatient at a private hospital. Subsequently, he had undergone treatment as outpatient for lengthy period. The Tribunal had not granted compensation under the relevant heads namely, Pain and suffering, Transport, Attender charges, Nutrition, Loss of earnings during the medical treatment period and Loss of amenities and Discomfort. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the appeal since the Tribunal had decided the issue namely negligence, liability and quantum of compensation in an appropriate manner. 10. On considering 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 conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. 10. On considering 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 conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. However, the Tribunal had awarded the compensation under the head of loss of earning, after adopting the multiplier method which is not pertinent in the instant case, therefore, this Court restructures the compensation as follows: Rs.70,000/-under the head of disability; Rs.15,000/- under the head of Pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/-under the head of Transport; Rs.10,000/- under the head of Attender charges; Rs.10,000/- under the head of Nutrition; Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of earning during the medical treatment period; Rs.25,000/- under the head of future medical expenses for re-operation in order to re-fix the steel rods with screws in an appropriate manner and in order to set right the previous operation as per the Doctors evidence; Rs.22,716/-towards medical expenses and Rs.74,200/- towards loss of amenities and loss of comfort. In total, Rs.2,46,916/-the same as granted by the Tribunal, rate of interest i.e., 7.5% remains unaltered. The liability has been fastened by the Tribunal is also unaltered since it was decided in an appropriate manner. Therefore, the award is confirmed and directs the appellant herein to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest as per the impugned award within a period of four weeks thereon, after deducting earlier deposit made by the appellant herein. 11. After such a deposit having 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.746 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Namakkal, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. 12. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.746 of 2005, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Namakkal, dated 22.08.2008, is confirmed. No costs.