Judgment : 1. The claimant and the first respondent Transport Corporation in M.C.O.P.No.1537 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III-Additional District Court, Salem, have preferred the above civil miscellaneous appeals, against the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2001. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The claimant had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1537 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III-Additional District Court, Salem, claiming a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- from the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. 3. It was submitted that on 10.10.1996, when the claimant was working as a Conductor in the first respondent's Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN27 N0453 and when the bus was proceeding from Chennai to Salem, at about 21.30 hours, when the bus was near Adhi Parasakthi Temple on G.S.T.Road, Melmaruvathur, the driver of the bus drove it at a high speed and dashed it against the second respondent's lorry bearing registration No.TNS 1315, which was being washed on the road. As a result, the claimant sustained injuries on his leg, forehead, hand and chest as glass pieces had pierced his body and was admitted at Chengelpet Government Hospital, wherein first aid was given and he was discharged on 13.10.1996. Subsequently, he was admitted at Salem Shanmuga Hospital, wherein a surgery was conducted on 15.10.1996 and another surgery was conducted on 29.10.1996. Thereafter, he received treatment with one Dr.Ravichandran at Namakkal. Due to the accident, his right leg had been affected and he is not able to walk and do his work. 4. Further, it was submitted that on 05.06.1998 another operation was conducted on his right thigh and after discharge on 02.08.1998, he was admitted at Perunthurai Hospital. At the time of accident, the claimant was earning Rs.5,350/-per month. Due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he availed earned leave from 10.10.1996 for six months and till 01.11.1997 he was getting half month salary and from 01.11.1997 onwards he had been on loss of pay. Hence, the claimant had filed the claim petition against the respondents. The first respondent Transport Corporation is the owner of the bus bearing registration No.TN27 N0453 and the second and third respondent are the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.TNS 1315. 5. Hence, the claimant had filed the claim petition against the respondents. The first respondent Transport Corporation is the owner of the bus bearing registration No.TN27 N0453 and the second and third respondent are the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.TNS 1315. 5. The first respondent Transport Corporation, in their counter affidavit, had submitted that the driver of the Transport Corporation bus drove it in a careful and cautious manner and that the accident was caused only due to negligence of the driver of the lorry, who had suddenly stopped the lorry without giving any signal. The averments made in the claim petition regarding age, income of the claimant, nature of injuries sustained and disability were also not admitted. Further, it was submitted that the claim was excessive. 6. The third respondent Insurance Company, in their counter affidavit, had denied the averments made in the claim petition regarding age and income of the claimant. Further, it was submitted that the accident was caused only by the negligence of the driver of the first respondent Transport Corporation bus and that the driver of the lorry had not been rash and negligent in driving the lorry. It was submitted further that the criminal case has been filed only against the driver of the bus. 7. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed four issues for consideration namely: i. Due to whose negligence had the accident occurred? ii. Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation? iii. What is the quantum of compensation, which the claimant is entitled to get? and iv. To what other relief is the claimant entitled to get? 8. ii. Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation? iii. What is the quantum of compensation, which the claimant is entitled to get? and iv. To what other relief is the claimant entitled to get? 8. On the claimant's side, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and 38 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P38 namely copy of FIR, copy of accident register, copy of M.V.I's report, copy of rough sketch, copy of charge sheet, discharge summaries, X'rays and medical bills, O.P.Card, receipts, salary receipt for the month of April, 1999, letter sent by the first respondent to the claimant asking for details of medical treatment taken, order of the first respondent that the claimant is to receive full salary for 180 days from 10.10.1996 to 07.04.1997 and half salary for the period from 08.04.1997 to 30.04.1997, order showing grant of privilege leave by the claimant from the first respondent for the period from 01.07.1997 to 31.10.1997, order of the first respondent instructing the claimant to appear before the Medical Board at Salem Government hospital, order showing grant of 154 days leave to the claimant, order of the first respondent showing grant of medical leave for 108 days from 15.05.1998 to 30.08.1998 to the claimant, order showing issuance of sick leave with half salary to the claimant from 16.03.1998 to 14.05.1998, order issued by the first respondent to the claimant instructing him to join duty on 16.11.1998, termination order of the first respondent relieving the claimant of his services from 20.04.1999, order of the first respondent instructing the claimant to appear before Salem Medical Board, order of the first respondent showing sanction of leave without pay to the claimant for the period from 21.04.1999 to 30.01.2000, report of the Salem Medical Board, order of the first respondent to the claimant to show cause as to why he should not be relieved from duty as per the order of the Medical Board, order showing termination of services of the claimant by the first respondent, notice sent to the first respondent to hand over original medical documents, acknowledgment card and disability certificate. On the respondents' side one witness was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked. 9. On the respondents' side one witness was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked. 9. P.W.1 claimant had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made by him in the claim petition regarding manner of accident and in support of his evidence, he had marked Exs.P1 to P38. On scrutiny of Ex.P1, it is seen that the FIR had been registered against the driver of the bus based on the complaint given by one Ganesan, who was the driver of the second respondent's lorry. It had been mentioned in the FIR that when the cleaner of the lorry was cleaning the lorry, the driver of the first respondent's bus drove it at a high speed and dashed it against the lorry. On scrutiny of Ex.P5, it is seen that the charge sheet had also been filed against the bus driver. On scrutiny of Ex.P3, it is seen that the accident had not been caused due to any mechanism failure of the first respondent's bus. 10. R.W.1 Palaniappan, driver of the first respondent's bus, had adduced evidence that on the date of occurrence of accident, he had driven the bus and that when the bus had proceeded past Melmaruvathur, he had seen a lorry going ahead of him and that it had suddenly been stopped without giving any indication. Further, he deposed that on seeing this, he had applied brakes and stopped the bus and that the bus had not dashed against the lorry. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P3, observed that the first respondent's bus had been badly damaged in the said accident. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 and on scrutiny of Exs.P1, P3 and P5, held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent's bus and hence dismissed the claim as against the respondents 2 and 3. 11. On scrutiny of Ex.P2, it is seen that the claimant had sustained grievous injuries in his right thigh, right knee joint and head. On scrutiny of Ex.P3, it is seen that the claimant had received treatment at Shanmuga Hospital, Salem, from 13.10.1996 to 09.11.1996. On scrutiny of Ex.P8, it is seen that the claimant had received treatment at Perunthurai Hospital from 24.04.1998 to 02.08.1998. 12. P.W.1 had further adduced evidence that surgeries were conducted on 15.10.1996, 29.10.1996 and 05.05.1998. 13. On scrutiny of Ex.P3, it is seen that the claimant had received treatment at Shanmuga Hospital, Salem, from 13.10.1996 to 09.11.1996. On scrutiny of Ex.P8, it is seen that the claimant had received treatment at Perunthurai Hospital from 24.04.1998 to 02.08.1998. 12. P.W.1 had further adduced evidence that surgeries were conducted on 15.10.1996, 29.10.1996 and 05.05.1998. 13. P.W.2 Dr.Elangovan had adduced evidence that he had examined the claimant on 01.11.2000 and that on scrutiny of the medical records and X'rays, he had observed that the fractured right thigh bone had been malunited and that a bone had been removed from his hip and implanted in his fractured thigh area. He deposed that the length of the claimant's right feet had been shortened by 2 cms., and that the movements of his right knee had been reduced. Further, he had adduced evidence that the claimant is able to bend his right knee inwards only upto 110 degrees and that a sutured wound was visible on his forehead. He deposed further that the claimant would not be able to stand or walk for a long distance and that he would not be able to work as a Conductor. He had also deposed that the disability sustained by the claimant was 45% and in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P37 disability certificate and Ex.P38 X'rays. 14. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- for loss of income during medical treatment and convalescence period, Rs.3,000/- was awarded for transport expenses, Rs.75,000/-was awarded for medical expenses, Rs.2,000/- was awarded for nutrition, Rs.25,000/-was awarded towards pain and suffering, Rs.70,000/- was awarded for disability of 45%, Rs.1,00,000/-was awarded towards loss of future earning capacity. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation to the claimant and directed the first respondent Transport Corporation to deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, with costs, within a period of three months from the date of it's order. The claim against the respondents 2 and 3 was dismissed. 15. Not being satisfied and aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant and the Transport Corporation have preferred the above civil miscellaneous appeals. 16. The claim against the respondents 2 and 3 was dismissed. 15. Not being satisfied and aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant and the Transport Corporation have preferred the above civil miscellaneous appeals. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant has contended in the appeal that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the claimant was being given only half month's salary and subsequently was discharged from services on the ground that consequent to the accident, he was unfit for duties as a Conductor and as such the Tribunal ought to have awarded the entire claim made under the head of loss of earnings. Further, it is contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the bills produced by the claimant for medical expenses exceeds the amount awarded. It is contended further that the Tribunal, after having found that the claimant herein was hospitalized for prolonged periods in succession, ought to have awarded the entire claim made under the head of extra nourishment. It is also contended that the award granted for disability is on the lower side. Hence, it is prayed for grant of additional compensation of Rs.3,86,882/-. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation has contended in the appeal that the Tribunal failed to see that the accident happened due to negligence of the driver of the lorry and that the driver of the bus drove it slowly and cautiously. It is also contended that the Tribunal failed to see that the driver of the lorry without giving any signal suddenly stopped the vehicle on the middle of the road and as such, should not have fixed the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. It is contended further that the Tribunal failed to see that the claimant did not examine the Doctor, who actually treated him and failed to see that the Doctor had deposed that if proper treatment is given, the improvement would be better. Further, it is contended that the disability assessed by the Doctor was on the higher side. Moreover, the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.75,000/- towards loss of income during period of treatment. It is also contended that the award granted under the medical expenses, pain and suffering, disability and future loss of income were excessive and hence it is prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 18. Moreover, the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.75,000/- towards loss of income during period of treatment. It is also contended that the award granted under the medical expenses, pain and suffering, disability and future loss of income were excessive and hence it is prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 18. On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that as per the exhibits marked by the claimant namely Ex.P32 Medical Board Opinion, the employer had issued show cause notice to the claimant as to why he should not be terminated from service since his health condition was not fit to perform as a conductor. Further, the claimant was on leave without pay for 284 days as per Ex.P30. further, the claimant had undergone three surgical operations at private hospitals. As per Doctor's evidence, it is seen that the claimant's right leg had been shortened by 2 cms., and his right thigh fractured bone had been malunited. Therefore, this Court opines that the claimant had suffered extensive physical bone fracture injuries. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant adequate compensation as follows: i. Rs.90,000/- is awarded towards disability, ii. Rs.1,95,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses, iii. Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering, iv. Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards transport expenses, v. Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards attender charges, vi. Rs.50,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of earning during medical treatment and convalescence period, and vii. Rs.50,000/- is awarded for loss of amenities and loss of comfort since the claimant's right leg had been shortened. In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs.4,40,000/-as compensation to the claimant, as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. After subtracting the initial compensation amount of Rs.3,50,000/-, this Court awards Rs.90,000/-as additional compensation. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. 19. This Court directs the Transport Corporation to deposit the additional compensation, with accrued interest thereon, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1537 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III-Additional District Court, Salem, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 19. This Court directs the Transport Corporation to deposit the additional compensation, with accrued interest thereon, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1537 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III-Additional District Court, Salem, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 20. After such a deposit having been made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, subject to the deduction of earlier withdrawals if any, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1537 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III-Additional District Court, Salem, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Judgment. 21. Further, this Court directs the learned III-Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III-Additional District Court, Salem, to disburse the compensation amount to the suffering claimant at the earliest, without any delay. 22. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal in C.M.A.No.2546 of 2007 filed by the claimant is partly allowed and the civil miscellaneous appeal in C.M.A.No.569 of 2009 filed by the Transport Corporation is dismissed and the Judgment and decree dated 07.09.2001, made in M.C.O.P.No.1537 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III-Additional District Court, Salem, is modified. No costs.