Judgment 1. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Dharmapuri which figured as sole respondent in M.C.O.P.No.382 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Krishnagiri is the appellant in the civil miscellaneous appeal. The claimant before the Tribunal is the respondent herein, who met with an accident involving the bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N 1588 owned by the appellant Transport Corporation on 8.7.2006 at about 3.30 p.m. near Agaram Murugar Kovil on Hosur - Royakotta Road. 2. The respondent herein made a claim against the appellant claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. According to the averments made in the claim petition, the said bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation collided with another bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N-1712 belonging to the very same Transport Corporation, which came in the opposite direction and the said accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N 1588 belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation. The respondent at the time of the accident was travelling as a passenger in the bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N 1588. It was also contended by the respondent in his claim petition that he sustained grievous injuries including fractures on the right hand requiring sophisticated treatment and that despite best treatment, the injuries resulted in permanent disability and also loss of his earning capacity. 3. The claim was resisted by the appellant Transport Corporation contending that the accident did not take place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N 1588 and that on the other hand, while the said bus and the other bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N-1712 were proceeding in the opposite direction, a motorcyclist suddenly and negligently came to the middle portion of the road; that on seeing the same, the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N-1588 made every effort to stop the bus by applying brake in an attempt to avoid hitting the motorcyclist and that in the said process, the bus drifted towards the road and collided with the other bus, which came in the opposite direction. Such an averment was made with a view to show that there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, in which the respondent was travelling as passenger and that the said accident took place in an attempt made by the driver of the said bus to avoid another accident, which would have been even a fatal one. Contending further that the respondent suffered only simple injuries and the said injuries did not result in permanent disability or loss of earning capacity, the appellant Transport Corporation prayed for dismissal of the M.C.O.P. 4. In the enquiry, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and 14 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.14 on the side of the respondent herein/injured claimant, whereas no witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the appellant Transport Corporation herein. 5. The Tribunal after considering the evidence in the light of the arguments advanced on both sides, gave a finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N 1588 belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation, in which the respondent was travelling as a passenger. The Tribunal also held that the injuries sustained by the respondent herein/injured claimant resulted in permanent disability. Based on the said finding, the Tribunal passed an award directing the appellant Transport Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.3,61,500/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of M.C.O.P till the date of deposit. The break up particulars of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal are as follows: Sl.No. Heading Amount 1 For injuries andpain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- 2 For Permanent Disability at 40% Rs. 60,000/- 3 For Nutrition Rs. 5,000/- 4 For Mental Agony Rs. 5,000/- 5 For pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/- 6 For transportation Rs. 10,000/- 7 For Medical Expenses` Rs.1,71,500/- ? Total Rs.3,61,500/- 6. Aggrieved by the said Award, the appellant Transport Corporation has come forward with the present appeal on various grounds set out in the memorandum of civil miscellaneous appeal. 7. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are as follows: "1. 10,000/- 6 For transportation Rs. 10,000/- 7 For Medical Expenses` Rs.1,71,500/- ? Total Rs.3,61,500/- 6. Aggrieved by the said Award, the appellant Transport Corporation has come forward with the present appeal on various grounds set out in the memorandum of civil miscellaneous appeal. 7. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are as follows: "1. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant Transport Corporation was liable to pay compensation to the respondent/injured claimant on the premise that the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N 1588, in which the respondent/injured claimant was travelling as passenger, acted with rashness and negligent and the same resulted in the accident in question? 2. Whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation is excessive and exorbitant requiring downward revision?" 8. The arguments advanced by Mr.M.Kiruba, learned counsel for the appellant and by Mr.Mukund R.Pandian, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The materials available on record are also perused. 9. Though the appellant has incorporated a ground challenging the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence on the part of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N 1588 belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation, the learned counsel for the appellant would fairly confess that the appellant cannot succeed on such ground and that the appellant would confine the challenge made to the award only on the question of quantum. It is a case in which, the accident took pace due to the head on collision of two vehicles, namely two passenger buses belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation. The attempt made by the appellant Transport Corporation that the accident took place due to the negligent act on the part of the motorcyclist, who came suddenly to the middle of the Road, remain an unsuccessful attempt. There was no evidence adduced on the side of the appellant to prove that the accident was triggered by such an act on the part of the motorcyclist. Even otherwise, as it is a case of collision of two buses belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation, there shall be composite negligence on the part of the driver of both buses and also motorcyclist as third force. In the case of composite negligence, the claimant shall have a right to make the claim against all or any one of them alone. In the case of composite negligence, the claimant shall have a right to make the claim against all or any one of them alone. That is the reason why, the appellant Transport corporation has given up the challenge made to the award on the question of liability under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and chose to confine its challenge to the award on the quantum alone. Accordingly, the question No.1 is answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent holding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the servant of the appellant Transport Corporation, namely the driver in charge of bus bearing Registration No.TN-29 N-1588. 10. Though the respondent might have chosen to make a claim on the strength of his pleading that he was a teacher and was having a monthly income of Rs.11,000/-, no document in proof of such employment and no document showing the salary came to be produced. Except the documents relating to the registration of the First Information Report, the admission in the hospital, nature of treatment given, medical bills and the disability with which he was found, no other document has been produced on the side of the respondent/injured claimant. However, the Tribunal gave a finding that the respondent/injured claimant was a teacher. Such a finding is not supported by any other evidence excepting the interested testimony of P.W.1. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the said finding deserves reversal. However, since the Tribunal chose to hold that there was no loss of earning capacity, it has opted to award lump sum compensation for permanent disability. If at all the said finding to award lumpsum compensation for permanent disability is disturbed and multiplier method is adopted, it shall have a significant impact on the total amount of compensation to be arrived at in this case. 11. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards injuries and pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards Transport expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards Extra nourishment. Rs.1,71,500/- has been awarded towards Medical Expenses. So far as the award of the said amount on the above said head are concerned, the appellant does not have any grievance, especially when the Medical expenses allowed by the Tribunal is covered by the Medical bills. Rs.1,71,500/- has been awarded towards Medical Expenses. So far as the award of the said amount on the above said head are concerned, the appellant does not have any grievance, especially when the Medical expenses allowed by the Tribunal is covered by the Medical bills. However, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out the duplication in the award of compensation in so far as Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards Mental Agony, besides a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering and yet another sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded once again for Pain and suffering. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant does not have any grievance over the award of Rs.60,000/- towards permanent disability and on the other hand, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded as compensation for injuries and pain and suffering should be held to be excessive and exorbitant requiring modification and reduction. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that, though the amount awarded towards injury and pain and suffering can be reduced, the Tribunal committed an error in substituting its own assessment of the extent of disability to the assessment made by the Medical Officer and that hence the amount awarded towards permanent disability should be increased to Rs.1,00,000/- taking the extent of disability as 50%. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that in case of stepping up of the award on the head of permanent disability, there won’t be any objection for reducing the amount awarded towards pain and suffering. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that by making such adjustments, the total amount for permanent disability and pain and suffering can be fixed at Rs.1,50,000/- and adding a further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities in life due to the disability, making the total amount of those heads to Rs.1,60,000/-. This court is of the considered view that the said modification as indicated supra, can be made, as they are justifiable and agreeable for both the parties. Accordingly compensation for permanent disability is fixed at Rs.1,00,000/-. Compensation for pain and suffering is fixed at Rs.50,000/- and compensation for loss of amenities in life is fixed at Rs.10,000/-. In addition to the amount already awarded towards pain and suffering, for the second time the Tribunal has awarded a further sum of Rs.10,000/- once again for pain and suffering. Accordingly compensation for permanent disability is fixed at Rs.1,00,000/-. Compensation for pain and suffering is fixed at Rs.50,000/- and compensation for loss of amenities in life is fixed at Rs.10,000/-. In addition to the amount already awarded towards pain and suffering, for the second time the Tribunal has awarded a further sum of Rs.10,000/- once again for pain and suffering. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent shall have no objection for disallowing Rs.10,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering once again awarded on the very same heading. 12. It is also pertinent to note that pain and suffering will include Mental agony also. In this case, when an amount is awarded towards suffering awarding a separate amount of Rs.5,000/- towards Mental agony is not warranted. Though the learned counsel for the respondent would admit that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony, he would contend that the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards expenses incurred on medical attendants and that the said amount can be converted into an amount awarded towards the said heading instead of mental agony. This Court is also of the view that the said submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is a fair submission, which cannot be discountenanced. Hence, this Court comes to the conclusion that out of the total compensation amount computed by the Tribunal, disallowance of Rs.10,000/- alone shall be made and the award shall be confirmed subject to such reduction. For the purpose of clarity, the total amount after such reduction shall be split up into and the break up particulars of such deduction are shown in the following tabular column: Sl.No. Heading Amount 1 For Permanent Disability Rs.1,00,000/- 2 For Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/- 3 For loss of amenities in life Rs. 10,000/- 4 For Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- 5 For Medical Attendants Rs. 5,000/- 6 For transportation Rs. 10,000/- 7 For Medical Expenses` Rs.1,71,500/- ? Total Rs.3,51,500/- In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award of the Tribunal is modified by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs.3,61,500/- to Rs.3,51,500/-. In all other respects including the rate of interest, the award of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed subject to the above said modification. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. In all other respects including the rate of interest, the award of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed subject to the above said modification. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. The appellant shall deposit the balance amount as per the modified award within four weeks from today.