Judgment 1. The short facts of the case are as follows:- When the claimant was travelling in the Car bearing Registration No.TN-01-H-2304 along with her mother-in-law on 30.09.1998, on the Thiruvarur Main road, the 4th respondent's State Transport Corporation Bus, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, in the same direction, grazed against the side of the Car. At the same time, the 5th respondent's State Transport Corporation Bus, coming in the opposite direction, had dashed against the Car. As a result, the claimant had sustained injuries. Hence, the claim has been filed against the owner and insurer of the Car as well as the State Transport Corporation. 2. The 3rd respondent / United India Insurance Company had filed a counter and resisted the claim. It was submitted that the Car had not been covered under an Insurance Policy and the driver of the Car did not possess a valid driving licence. It was submitted that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of the 4th respondent's bus driver. The averments in the claim regarding nature of injuries, mode of treatment and disability was not admitted. 3. The 4th respondent had filed a counter and opposed the claim. The respondent stated that the F.I.R. has been registered against the driver of the Car and the 4th respondent's bus had not been involved in the said accident. The 5th respondent had also filed a counter and refuted the claim. The respondent submitted that the driver of the bus had not driven the bus in a negligent manner and that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Car. 4. After recording the averments of the parties, the trial Court had framed four issues namely (1) Whether the accident had been committed by the driver of the Car bearing Registration No.TN-01-H-2304, in a negligent manner? (2) Whether the driver of the 4th respondent's bus bearing Registration No.TN-49-N-0490 had been rash and negligent in his driving and committed the accident? (3) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? and (4) From whom the claimant is entitled to get compensation? 5. On the side of the claimant, three witnesses were examined and 19 documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, one witness each was examined on their respective sides and no documents were marked. (3) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? and (4) From whom the claimant is entitled to get compensation? 5. On the side of the claimant, three witnesses were examined and 19 documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, one witness each was examined on their respective sides and no documents were marked. The documents marked by the claimant are as follows:- F.I.R.; Motor Vehicle Inspector's report; Accident report; Wound Certificate; Copy of policy; Criminal Court judgment; Rough sketch; Medical discharge summaries; Connected documents; Income tax particulars; and Disability Certificate. 6. PW1 had adduced evidence that on 30.09.1998, when he, his brother and his mother-in-law were travelling in the Car bearing Registration No.TN-01-H-2304, towards Thiruvarur, the driver of the Car overtook the 4th respondent's bus bearing Registration No.TN-49-N-0490, which was proceeding ahead of the Car and at that time, the 5th respondent's bus coming in the opposite direction dashed against the Car and the 4th respondent's bus had also grazed against the rear side of the Car. PW1 further stated that he had sustained injuries on his C2 and C3 bone in spinal cord and that he had undergone treatment at Government as well as Private Hospital namely Vinodhagan Hospital. PW2, had adduced evidence that the claimant had sustained injuries on both his legs, hands and neck. He had certified that the claimant had sustained 48% disability and that the fractured bone in his neck had been malunited. 7. RW1 had adduced evidence that he is the driver attached to the 4th respondent's bus. He deposed that the driver of the Taxi had attempted to overtake the bus and in the process, the Car had dashed against the 5th respondent's bus. RW2 had adduced evidence that when the 4th respondent's bus was coming in the opposite direction on the Thiruvarur Main road and at that time, the driver of the Car had overtaken the 4th respondent's bus and dashed the Car against his bus. 8. On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on verifying the exhibits marked by the claimant, the Tribunal had come to a conclusion that the accident had been committed by the driver of the Car and as such held the 3rd respondent / Insurance Company liable to pay compensation and directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Against the said award and decree, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. The highly competent counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal had adopted multiplier method and granted compensation of a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- under the head of disability, which is not pertinent in the instant case, since the claimant had sustained simple injuries and underwent treatment at Government Hospital, Thanjavur. 9. The highly competent counsel further submits that the 4th respondent's bus had grazed against the side of the Car and the 5th respondent's bus had dashed against the Car and as such the 4th and 5th respondents are also to be held liable to pay compensation as contributory negligence had also been attributed by the drivers of the bus, but in the instant case, the Tribunal had erroneously fastened the entire liability on the Insurance Company. As per rough sketch, it clearly reveals that three vehicles had been involved in the said accident. 10. The learned counsel for the claimant vehemently argued that the claimant's C2 and C3 bones of spinal cord were fractured and his neck bone was also fractured and as such the claimant's physical condition had been affected. Therefore, the Tribunal had adopted multiplier method as the fractured bones had been malunited. A neck collar had been fixed around his neck permanently. 11. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent argued that the F.I.R. has been registered against the driver of the Car and the Car driver had overtaken the bus and as a result the Car had grazed against the side of the bus. Therefore, the driver of the 4th respondent had not contributed negligence for the occurrence of accident. The highly competent counsel for the 5th respondent submitted that the driver of the Car had driven it on the extreme right of the road and came beyond the right of medium line and dashed it against the 5th respondent's bus. In order to prove the same, rough sketch had been marked. The offending Car driver had openly admitted his negligence and rash driving and paid the fine before the Criminal Court. Therefore, the Tribunal had decided the 1st issue in an appropriate manner against the respondents 1 to 3. The 5th respondent is only a formal party and extended their co-operation before the trial Court as well as this Court to disclose the factual position of the case. 12. Therefore, the Tribunal had decided the 1st issue in an appropriate manner against the respondents 1 to 3. The 5th respondent is only a formal party and extended their co-operation before the trial Court as well as this Court to disclose the factual position of the case. 12. On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on all sides and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence and liability. Both the issues have been decided in an appropriate manner after considering the relevant documents namely F.I.R., Rough sketch, Criminal Court Judgment and Copy of Policy. However, the quantum of compensation awarded is on the higher side, since the Tribunal had adopted multiplier method and granted compensation which is incorrect in the instant case. Therefore, this Court reassesses the compensation as follows:- Rs.96,000/- is awarded for disability; Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/- towards transport; Rs.10,000/- for nutrition; Rs.10,000/- towards attender charges; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earning during medical treatment period; Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards fixation of collar band on his neck; and Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of amenities and loss of comfort which is permanent in nature. In total, this Court awards Rs.2,11,000/- as compensation. The rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal is unaltered. 13. This Court directed the appellant to deposit the entire compensation with interest. Now, the claimant is at liberty to withdraw the modified compensation amount, with proportionate interest thereon, as per this Court's findings, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.192 of 2002, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) Nagapattinam, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. Likewise, the appellant is at liberty to withdraw the excess compensation amount, with proportionate interest thereon, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order. 14. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Judgment and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.192 of 2002, dated 22.04.2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) Nagapattinam, is modified. No costs.