Judgment : 1. The appellant / second respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2001, made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.897 of 1994, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Vellore. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The claimant had filed a claim petition in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.897 of 1994, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Vellore, claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation, from the respondents, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. 3. It was submitted that the claimant was working as a Cleaner in the first respondent's Tempo Van bearing registration No.KA08 118. Whileso, on 06.08.1993, at about 12.45 p.m., when the claimant was travelling in the said Van as a cleaner, from Malur in Karnataka State to Madras and when it was proceeding on Krishnagiri-Vellore Road, near Kalanipakkam, the second respondent's Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN01 N0080, proceeding ahead of the van, was suddenly stopped by it's driver, without putting on the rear side red signal. As a result, the van had dashed behind the right rear side of the bus and the claimant sustained multiple fracture injuries on his legs. He was initially treated at Government Pentland Hospital, Vellore and subsequently treated at St.Marsha's Hospital, Bangalore, wherein he was hospitalized for a considerable period. Due to disability sustained by him, he is not able to do his work as before. Hence, the claimant had filed the claim petition against the respondents. The respondents 1 and 3 are the owner and insurer of the van bearing registration No.KA08 118 and the second respondent is the owner of the bus bearing registration No.TN01 N0080. 4. The second respondent Transport Corporation, in their counter affidavit, had submitted that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving by the first respondent's van driver and that the bus driver is not responsible for the accident. The averments made in the claim regarding age, income and occupation were not admitted. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 5. The averments made in the claim regarding age, income and occupation were not admitted. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 5. The third respondent Insurance Company, in their counter affidavit, had submitted that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and that there was no negligence on the part of the van driver and as such the first and third respondents are not liable to pay compensation. 6. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: i. Whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver or van driver? and ii. Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 7. On the claimant's side, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and five documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P5 namely copy of FIR, copy of wound certificate, discharge summary, medical bills and disability certificate. On the respondents' side, one witness was examined as R.W.1 and the policy and claim form were marked as Exs.R1 and R2. 8. P.W.1 had adduced evidence, which is on similar lines to the statements contained in the claim regarding manner of accident and in support of his claim, he had marked Exs.P1 to P5. On scrutiny of Ex.P1, it is seen that the complaint had been given by the bus driver Kannadasan as against the van driver. It was mentioned therein that as a bullock cart had suddenly come from the opposite side, the driver of the bus had driven the bus slowly and that the van, which came from behind, had dashed against the rear side of the bus and caused the accident. 9. R.W.1 Sekar, conductor of the bus, had adduced evidence that a lorry had come behind their bus and that the van driver had attempted to overtake it. However, as another vehicle had come from the opposite direction, the van driver had turned the van to the left of the road and dashed it against the rear side of the bus. 10. The Tribunal observed that the version given by the bus driver in Ex.p1 was different from that of the evidence of R.W.1 regarding manner of accident. However, as another vehicle had come from the opposite direction, the van driver had turned the van to the left of the road and dashed it against the rear side of the bus. 10. The Tribunal observed that the version given by the bus driver in Ex.p1 was different from that of the evidence of R.W.1 regarding manner of accident. The Tribunal, on observing that R.W.1 was sitting in a seat in the front side of the bus and on observing that the driver of the bus had not been examined to prove the contentions regarding manner of accident and on observing that no report had been filed to their compensation regarding this, held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the second respondent's bus. 11. P.W.1 had further adduced evidence that he had sustained fracture in both his thigh bones and that he could not walk as before. On scrutiny of Ex.P2, it is seen that he had sustained fracture of both right and left femur and that he was treated in St.Marsha's Hospital at Bangalore and that he had been hospitalized in the said hospital on two occasions from 11.07.1994 to 16.08.1994 and from 19.09.1994 to 05.11.1994. 12. P.W.2 Dr.Shanmugasundaram had adduced evidence that he had examined the claimant and that due to the fracture of two of the bones in his left leg, the length of the claimant's leg had been shortened and that as the movement of the left leg had become restricted, he cannot squat or sit cross-legged or do any manual labour. He certified that the disability sustained by the claimant was 35% and in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P5 disability certificate. 13. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of wound certificate and hospital records, observed that the claimant was aged 22 years. The Tribunal, on adopting a multiplier of 20, awarded a sum of Rs.58,800/- under the head of disability of 35% (700 X 35/100 X 12 X 20), Rs.20,000/- was awarded for pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/-for medical expenses as per bill marked as Ex.P6, Rs.5,000/- was awarded for transport expenses, Rs.5,000/-was awarded towards nutrition. The Tribunal, on adopting a multiplier of 20, awarded a sum of Rs.58,800/- under the head of disability of 35% (700 X 35/100 X 12 X 20), Rs.20,000/- was awarded for pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/-for medical expenses as per bill marked as Ex.P6, Rs.5,000/- was awarded for transport expenses, Rs.5,000/-was awarded towards nutrition. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.98,800/-as compensation to the claimant and directed the second respondent to pay the said sum 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, with costs, within a period of two months, from the date of it's order. The claim against the first and third respondents was dismissed. 14. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the second respondent Transport Corporation has preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in the appeal that the Tribunal ought to have held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent's driver, who drove the van with speed and dashed it behind the appellant's bus. It is contended that the Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability on the insurer and owner of the van, since the van driver was solely responsible for the accident and the FIR was filed only against the van driver. It is contended that the Tribunal ought to have atleast held that both the drivers were equally responsible for the accident and as such the liability ought to have been equally fastened on the insurer/third respondent. Further, it is contended that the award granted for disability and pain and suffering was excessive and hence it is prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant has submitted that the accident had been committed by the driver of the bus, since the driver had driven the bus at a high speed and all of a sudden had applied brakes without putting on rear red light indicator and as such the entire negligence is on the driver of the bus. Further, the insurance company had not come forward to defeat the claim petition by way of production of rough sketch to determine the tyre marks of both vehicles. Further, the insurance company had not come forward to defeat the claim petition by way of production of rough sketch to determine the tyre marks of both vehicles. Further, the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries and the doctor had assessed the disability at 35%. The claimant had been hospitalized for about three months as an inpatient. 17. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels 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. This Court is of the further view that both sides have not produced the rough sketch to decide the negligence. Therefore, this Court declines to interfere with the impugned award. Further, the claimant had sustained 35% disability and therefore the quantum of compensation is reasonable. 18. This Court has already directed the appellant Transport Corporation to deposit the entire award amount together with interest and entire cost, less the amount already deposited, to the credit of M.A.C.T.O.P.No.897 of 1994, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Vellore. 19. Now, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.A.C.T.O.P.No.897 of 1994, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Vellore, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Judgment. 20. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and decree dated 18.04.2001, made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.897 of 1994, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Vellore, is confirmed. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.