JUDGMENT : All the four appeals arise out of common Judgment dated 29.9.2006 passed in M.C.O.P. Nos. 975 to 978 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum FTC-I, Trichy. 2. The claimants filed petitions claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by them in the accident that took place on 03.02.2001. The claimants in M.C.O.P. Nos. 975 and 976 of 2001 filed Cross Objection (MD) Nos. 20 and 21 of 2014 in C.M.A.(MD) Nos. 585 and 588 of 2010. All the four appeals are filed by the insurance company. The first respondent in all the appeals are the claimants. The second respondent is the owner of the vehicle -TATA Sumo. The respondents 3 and 4 are the Transport Corporation. In all the four appeals and two Cross Objections, parties are one and the same and all the cases are arising out of the same accident that took place on 03.02.2001. Therefore, all the cases are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Facts of the case:- On 03.02.2001 all the claimants were coming from Bangalore to Pudukottai in TATA Sumo vehicle belonging to second respondent, insured with the appellant. According to the claimants, the driver of the TATA Sumo was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner from the beginning. When they were nearing Rengammal Chattiram colony on the Trichy-Pudukottai road, the bus bearing registration No. TN-45/N-1181 belonging to the third and fourth respondents coming in the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the TATA Sumo. Due to that, all the claimants sustained injuries and admitted in the hospital and claimed compensation for the injuries sustained by them. The claimants have stated that both the drivers were driving their vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. 4. The second respondent remained exparte. The appellant, who is the insurer of the TATA Sumo in the counter statement denied that the driver of the TATA Sumo was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hence, he was not responsible for the accident. On the other hand, according to the appellant, the driver of the bus belonging to the third and fourth respondents drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. In any event, the amount claimed as compensation is excessive. 5. On the other hand, according to the appellant, the driver of the bus belonging to the third and fourth respondents drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. In any event, the amount claimed as compensation is excessive. 5. The third respondent filed counter statement and stated that the bus did not belong to them and they are not necessary party. 6. The fourth respondent filed counter statement and stated that the driver of the bus drove the bus cautiously. On seeing the driver of the TATA Sumo driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, the driver of the bus went to the left side of the road and stopped the bus. The driver of the TATA Sumo dashed against the right side of the bus, hit the TVS 50 which was parked on the right side of the road and also dashed against the Telephone pole. An FIR was registered against the driver of the TATA Sumo. 7. Before the Tribunal, joint trial was conducted and evidence was let in M.C.O.P. No. 975 of 2001. The mother of the claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 975 of 2001 was examined as P.W.1 and other claimants were examined as P.Ws.2 to 4. Dr. Mathivanan was examined as P.W. 5. The claimants marked 28 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.28. On the side of the respondents, the driver of the fourth respondent was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked on their side. The appellant did not let in oral and documentary evidence. 8. The Tribunal framed necessary points for consideration. On considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TATA Sumo and awarded compensation to the claimants and directed the second respondent and appellant to pay the compensation jointly. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petitions against the third and fourth respondents. Against the said order dated 29.09.2006, the appellant insurance company/second respondent in MCOPs filed the present appeals. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of the claimants, who categorically stated that both the drivers are equally responsible for the accident. Against the said order dated 29.09.2006, the appellant insurance company/second respondent in MCOPs filed the present appeals. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of the claimants, who categorically stated that both the drivers are equally responsible for the accident. The Tribunal erred in fixing the entire negligence on the part of the driver of the TATA Sumo vehicle and held that the second respondent and appellant alone are liable to pay the compensation. In any event, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the liability equally on the appellant, second respondent on the one hand and third and fourth respondents on the other hand. The Tribunal erred in relying on the Judgment of the criminal court. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the amount awarded is excessive. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following Judgments to substantiate his case: (i) 2004 (2) TN MAC 101 [N. Sathidevi & Others Vs. V. Giridharan & Another] (ii) 2007(1) TN MAC 15 [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijaya & Others] (iii) 2008(1) TN MAC 177 [National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M. Jayagandhi & Others] 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that the claimants have proved that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TATA Sumo belonging to the second respondent. The Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence and rightly held that the accident took place only by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the TATA Sumo vehicle. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants in M.C.O.P. Nos. 975 & 976 of 2001, who have filed cross objections contended that Tribunal erred in awarding less compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimants. The Tribunal ought to have granted more compensation taking into account the evidence of the doctor P.W.5, nature of injury and disability suffered by claimants and amounts awarded under different heads are too meagre. The Tribunal ought to have seen future prospects of the claimants are severely affected because of the injuries. The Tribunal ought to have granted more compensation taking into account the evidence of the doctor P.W.5, nature of injury and disability suffered by claimants and amounts awarded under different heads are too meagre. The Tribunal ought to have seen future prospects of the claimants are severely affected because of the injuries. The Tribunal failed to consider that the claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 975 of 2001 in C.M.A. (MD) No. 585 of 2010 is a minor and she suffered injury in brain and loss of memory, head ache and she is unable to read, write and walk. The learned counsel for the first respondent relied on the Full Bench Judgment reported in 2006 (4) CTC 433 [Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. V. Ahmed Thambi & Others and submitted that compensation must be itemised. 12. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent contended that as per the evidence of the claimants, it is clear that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of TATA Sumo vehicle. The said vehicle dashed against the right side of the bus, hit the TVS 50 and telephone pole on the right hand side. An FIR was registered against the driver of the TATA Sumo vehicle and he admitted his guilt in the criminal proceedings and paid fine. The admission in the criminal court can be considered by the Tribunal as supportive evidence to fix the negligence on the driver of the vehicle. The fourth respondent examined the driver of the bus as R.W.1 and proved that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TATA Sumo. The appellant and second respondent did not examine the driver of the TATA Sumo or anybody else to disprove the fact that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the TATA Sumo. 13. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent relied on the following Judgments dated 24.11.2008 in C.M.A. No. 1376 of 2002 in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Gobi Vs. K. Ambujam & Others and Judgment dated 24.6.2008 in C.M.A. 1798 of 2002 in The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. Mohammed Hussain & Another and contended that this Court has held that the admission in the criminal court can be considered by the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition filed by the claimants. 14. Ltd. Gobi Vs. K. Ambujam & Others and Judgment dated 24.6.2008 in C.M.A. 1798 of 2002 in The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. Mohammed Hussain & Another and contended that this Court has held that the admission in the criminal court can be considered by the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition filed by the claimants. 14. I have considered the rival submission and perused the materials on record. 15. Points for consideration: (i) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the accident took place only by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the TATA Sumo? (ii) Whether the first respondent in C.M.A.(MD) Nos. 585 and 588 of 2010/Cross Objectors in Cross Objection (MD) Nos. 20 and 21 of 2014 are entitled for any enhancement of compensation? 16. Point No.1: Claimants in claim petitions stated that the driver of the TATA Sumo was driving the car at a high sped in a rash and negligent manner from the beginning. They also stated that the driver of the bus was also driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, but while deposing before the Tribunal, P.W.1 in her cross-examination stated that she saw the bus 200-300 feet away from the place of accident. She also stated that by assumption only she is deposing that the driver of the bus also was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner. The evidence of P.W.1 cannot be relied on for holding that the driver of the bus has also driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner as she admitted that she is deposing on assumption that the driver of the bus was driving in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and he deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TATA Sumo vehicle. There is no contra evidence to disprove the evidence of R.W.1. On the other hand, FIR was registered against the driver of the TATA Sumo and he pleaded guilty before the criminal court and paid fine. In the circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the fourth respondent that his admission before the criminal court can be taken as a supportive piece of evidence in deciding the rash and negligent driving by a person, has considerable force. In the circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the fourth respondent that his admission before the criminal court can be taken as a supportive piece of evidence in deciding the rash and negligent driving by a person, has considerable force. This Court in Judgment reported in 2007 (1) TN MAC 15 [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Vijaya & Others] relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant held in paragraph 13 that Judgment of the criminal court can never be the sole decisive factor, but can be supporting material corroborative evidence adduced by the claimant. This conclusion was arrived at by this Court following the Judgments reported in 1997 ACJ 993 [Pankajbhai Chandulal Patel V. Bharat Transport Co]. In view of this Judgment, there is no error in the conclusion of the Tribunal that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the TATA Sumo. 17. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal ought to have fixed the negligence equally on both the driver is not tenable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 18. In the Judgment reported in 2008 (1) TN MAC 177 [National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. M. Jayagandhi & Others] relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court, in paragraph 15 of the Judgment fixed the liability on the driver of the bus and the deceased based on the pattern of damages caused to the vehicles. In the present case, there is no proof with regard to the nature of damages caused to the bus as well as TATA Sumo vehicle. Accepting the evidence both oral and documentary produced, the Tribunal held that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of TATA Sumo. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is confirmed. 19. Point No.2: As far as the claimant/first respondent in C.M.A. (MD)No. 585 of 2010, who is the petitioner in cross objection(MD)No. 20 of 2014 is concerned, the claimant was a minor girl aged about 9 years at the time of accident. She has suffered injury on her head and her brain has been affected severely. She was in hospital from 03.02.2001 to 03.03.2001 and thereafter, she took further treatment at Bangalore. She underwent surgery in the brain. She has suffered injury on her head and her brain has been affected severely. She was in hospital from 03.02.2001 to 03.03.2001 and thereafter, she took further treatment at Bangalore. She underwent surgery in the brain. P.W.5 doctor deposed that she suffered loss of memory and she is unable to read, write and walk. Considering the age of the claimant and nature of injury and the percentage of the permanent disability, the Tribunal erred in awarding less compensation. This is a fit case to apply multiplier for awarding compenstion taking into consideration the age of the claimant, nature of injuries, percentage of disability. For a life long permanent disability for a girl child, notional income of Rs.2000/- is fixed. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- for permanent disability. According to the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(2) TN MAC 1 (SC), applying the multiplier of 15, permanent disability compensation payable comes to (2000 x 12 x 15 x 65/100) = Rs.2,34,000/-. Therefore, the amount of compensation is enhanced by a further sum of 1,09,000/- (Rs.2,34,000 – Rs.1,25,000). The Tribunal granted Rs.2000/- for extra nourishment and Rs.15,000/-for pain and suffering. No amount was granted for attendant charges. The claimant was taking treatment as inpatient from 03.02.2001 to 03.03.2001. Therefore, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards extra nourishment and pain and suffering are enhanced from Rs.2,000 to Rs.5,000/- and Rs.15,000 to 25,000/- respectively and a sum of Rs.10,000/- is granted towards attendant charges. Though the claimant has restricted her claim for enhancement to Rs.1 lakh, taking into consideration the age of the minor and she being a female child, this Court exercising its discretion and is awarding a further sum of Rs.1,32,000/- as compensation in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant is 15 directed to pay the court fee for the balance enhanced amount of Rs.32,000/-. The modified award is as follows: Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court Award amount enhanced or confirmed or granted Permanent Disability Rs.1,25,000/- Rs.2,34,000/- Enhanced Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 25,000/- Enhanced Medical expenses Rs.1,71,480/- Rs.1,71,480/- Confirmed Transport Rs. 1,000/- Rs. 1,000/- Confirmed Extra Nourishment Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 5,000 Enhanced Attendant charges NIL Rs. 10,000/- Granted Total Rs.3,14,480/- Rs. 4,46,480/- Enhanced by Rs.1,32,000/- 20. 15,000/- Rs. 25,000/- Enhanced Medical expenses Rs.1,71,480/- Rs.1,71,480/- Confirmed Transport Rs. 1,000/- Rs. 1,000/- Confirmed Extra Nourishment Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 5,000 Enhanced Attendant charges NIL Rs. 10,000/- Granted Total Rs.3,14,480/- Rs. 4,46,480/- Enhanced by Rs.1,32,000/- 20. As far as the claimant/first respondent in C.M.A.(MD)No. 588 of 2010, who is the petitioner in cross objection(MD)No.21 of 2014 is concerned, the claimant was taking treatment as inpatient in the hospital from 03.02.2001 to 13.02.2001. Subsequently, she has underwent an operation on her right eye. The Doctor has fixed the percentage of permanent disability at 47%. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.90,500/- for permanent disability. The Tribunal failed to consider that the first respondent/claimant has completely lost her eye sight in her right eye permanently. In the circumstance, the compensation awarded is enhanced by a further sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.90,500/-+ Rs.50,000/-= Rs.1,40,500/-). The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards attendant charges. Therefore, a sum of Rs.5000/- is granted for attendant charges. The amount awarded towards extra nourishment is enhanced from Rs.2000/- to Rs.5,000/-. In all other aspects, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. 21. The award amount is modified as follows: Heads Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court Award amount enhanced/confirmed/granted Permanent Disability Rs. 90,500/- Rs.1,40,500/- Enhanced Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Confirmed Medical expenses Rs.1,01,000/- Rs.1, 01,000/- Confirmed Transport Rs. 1,000/- Rs. 1,000/- Confirmed Extra Nourishment Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 5,000/- Enhanced Attendant charges NIL Rs. 5,000/- Granted Total Rs. 2,04,500/- Rs. 2,62,500/- Enhanced by Rs.58,000/- 22. Thus, an enhanced compensation of Rs.58,000/- is granted, which is over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 23. In the result, all the CMAs are dismissed and the cros objection (MD)No. 20 of 2014 is allowed and cross objection (MD)No. 21 of 2014 is partly allowed. No costs.