JUDGMENT : Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J. Common Prayer: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order and decree dated 07.02.2019 in M.C.O.P.No.2692 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 1. C.M.A.No.158 of 2021 is filed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation against the award dated 07.02.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.2692 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 2. C.M.A.No.3354 of 2019 is filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation granted by the award dated 07.02.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.2692 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 3. Since both the appeals arise out of the same accident and award, they are taken up together and being disposed of by this common judgment. The parties are referred to as per their ranks in the claim petition for the sake of convenience. 4. The claimant filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.2692 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai, claiming a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 27.06.2011. For the purpose of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal. 5. According to the claimant, he was working as a Conductor in the 1st respondent's bus bearing Regn.No.TN-38-N-2487 which was plying from Coimbatore to Krishnagiri. At about 03.45 hours, while the 1st respondent's bus was proceeding on Dharmapuri to Krishnagiri Road, near Kaveripattinam in Dharmapuri Road and near to Kaveripattinam Errahalli bus stop, the lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-39-Y-4686 belonging to the 2nd respondent and the said lorry was insured with the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company, came in a rash and negligent manner and colluded with the 1st respondent's bus. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries. 6. Resisting the claim petition, the 1at respondent/Transport Corporation filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, contending that there was no negligent on the part of the driver of the Transport corporation bus while the lorry driver suddenly stopped the vehicle without any caution which was going ahead, resulted in dashing the lorry by the TC bus. 6. Resisting the claim petition, the 1at respondent/Transport Corporation filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, contending that there was no negligent on the part of the driver of the Transport corporation bus while the lorry driver suddenly stopped the vehicle without any caution which was going ahead, resulted in dashing the lorry by the TC bus. Therefore, it is contended that the accident happened only due to the negligence of the lorry driver who stopped the lorry in the middle of the road without indication or caution. The FIR was lodged against the driver of the bus, but it is not a substantial piece of evidence to come to a conclusion by the Tribunal that the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver of the Transport corporation bus. It is also disputed as regards income, age and injuries sustained by the claimant. 7. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company also filed a counter contending that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent's Transport Corporation bus and hit the rear side of the lorry, resulting in the lorry falling in a ditch which is situated on the left side of the road and there was no negligence on the part of the lorry driver and thereby the 1st respondent is liable to pay the compensation. This respondent also disputes the occupation, income of the claimant, place, date and time of the accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant. 8. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 & Doctor K.J.Mathiazhagan was examined as P.W.2, and marked Exs.P1 to P17. On the side of the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company, Mr.Srinivasa Rao was examined as R.W1 and Mr.Venkatesan was examined as R.W.2 and marked Exs.R1 to R2. The appellant/Transport Corporation did not let in any oral and documentary evidence. 9. The Tribunal considering the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation and directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant. 10. 9. The Tribunal considering the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation and directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant. 10. As against the said award dated 07.02.2019 in M.C.O.P.No.2692 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the appellant/Transport Corporation has come out with the present appeal in C.M.A.No.158 of 2021, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Not being satisfied with the award granted by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed C.M.A.No.3354 of 2019 seeking enhancement of compensation. 12. As per the submission of Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan, learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation, the claimant was serving as a Conductor in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and as per the claim petition, he was on duty on 27.06.2011 in the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation bearing Registration No.TN-38-N-2487. The bus was proceeding from Coimbatore to Krishnagiri. On the fateful day, at about 3.45 hours, when the bus was proceeding in Krishnagiri District near Kaveripattinam Errahalli bus stop on Krishnagiri to Dharmapuri road, the bus was alleged to have colluded with a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-39-Y- 4686. The driver of the lorry had lodged the First Information Report, wherein he had shifted the blame on the driver of the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation, as though the driver of the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation was at fault. It was the case of the Transport Corporation that the driver of the lorry suddenly stopped on the highway without giving caution and signal for the vehicle coming from behind, thereby the accident had occurred. In the accident, the claimant as conductor of the bus, suffered multiple injuries. 13. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, after due enquiry, assessed the compensation and awarded the compensation to the claimant, payable by the Transport Corporation, without properly considering the negligent act of the 2nd respondent who was driving the lorry, which was insured with 3rd respondent/Insurance Company. The entire liability regarding the compensation for the claimant who was the conductor of the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation was shifted on the appellant/Transport Corporation. The entire liability regarding the compensation for the claimant who was the conductor of the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation was shifted on the appellant/Transport Corporation. Therefore, the Transport Corporation had filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to set aside the award of the Tribunal passed in M.C.O.P.No.2692 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai dated 07.02.2019. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the claimant had also filed an appeal before this Court in C.M.A.No.3354 o 2019 challenging the quantum, since the award passed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The petition to condone delay in filing the appeal by the claimant was allowed recently. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant that the conductor had met with an accident on the line of duty on 27.06.2011 and immediately after the accident, he was rushed to the Krishnagiri Government Head Quarters Hospital. Later, he was shifted from that hospital to Ganga Hospital at Coimbatore. He had suffered multiple injuries like (i) Head injury, (ii) Communited Fracture Left Trochanter with Internal Degloving Injury Left Proximal Thigh, (iii) Stable Fracture Pelvis, (iv) Lateral Collateral Ligament Lavuslion Fracture in Right Ankle, (v) Fracture in Left Femur and (vi) Abbrassion all over the body, for which he had been under continuous treatment at Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore, from 2011 till the date of enquiry before the Tribunal in the year 2019 and in between, he had not worked as a Conductor, but requested a lesser job based on his medical report of the Doctors who treated at Ganga Hospital by way of his representation to the Transport Corporation under the provisions of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act , 2016 for providing a suitable job for differently abled persons and the same was not considered by the Transport Corporation. From the date of accident till the date of passing of the award, he was not given job and he was also not paid the salary. Therefore, he was suffering continuously and in the meanwhile, he had attained the age of superannuation and also retired from service. He had been denied his service benefits and pension till date. From the date of accident till the date of passing of the award, he was not given job and he was also not paid the salary. Therefore, he was suffering continuously and in the meanwhile, he had attained the age of superannuation and also retired from service. He had been denied his service benefits and pension till date. Therefore, this Court has to consider the appeal filed by the Claimant/Conductor of the Transport Corporation bus, seeking enhancement and to dismiss the appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Coimbatore, seeking to set aside the impugned award. Aggrieved by the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, after having observed the disability of the claimant and considering the evidence of P.W.2 who was the Doctor, and who had assessed the disability of the claimant at 65% and who had issued disability certificate under Ex.P17, the Tribunal had failed to appreciate the fact regarding the multiple injuries suffered by the claimant in the course of his employment and failed to appreciate the evidence let in by the claimant as P.W.1 regarding his continuous treatment till the date of enquiry by the Tribunal. The said disability certificate was not considered by the Tribunal and the Tribunal had without any scientific explanation, reduced the disability to 30%. Here, it is a fit case for adopting multiplier method to assess the partial permanent disability and its consequences in the light of various reported rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as per the guidelines issued in "Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and in the case of Ankur Kapoor Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., [2018 (1) TN-MAC 1 SC]. The Tribunal had assessed 30% permanent disability and instead of multiplier system, had adopted percentage system, thereby, the claimant was denied the “just compensation”. The claimant in C.M.A.No.3354 of 2019 who is the victim, had undergone continuous treatment even after impugned award granting compensation. Therefore, for future medical expenses also, he needs compensation. The Tribunal had failed to appreciate the partial permanent disability in proper perspective. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Coimbatore Division, had sought Court's permission to mark additional documents regarding the filing of representation before Transport Corporation in C.M.A.No.158 of 2021 seeking direction against the Transport Corporation for an alternative job, by considering his disability and without reduction in his salary. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Coimbatore Division, had sought Court's permission to mark additional documents regarding the filing of representation before Transport Corporation in C.M.A.No.158 of 2021 seeking direction against the Transport Corporation for an alternative job, by considering his disability and without reduction in his salary. Considering his representation, the Transport Corporation had referred the claimant to the Medical Board wherein the Medical Board, had given an opinion that he is unable to stand. Till the completion of medical treatment, he may be considered for a light duty. Consequently, the State Transport Corporation sought for a final Medical Board opinion and while the same was pending, the claimant had filed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.12823 of 2015 and the same was dismissed. Suppressing the same, he had filed MACTOP case and therefore, the disability relied on by the claimant that he had suffered 65% disability is exaggerated one and the submission of the learned counsel for Transport Corporation to mark additional documents filed in additional typed set in the appeal, was rejected by this Court on the ground that the said document relied on by the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation was not marked during the enquiry and he had not let in evidence. In the absence of marking documents and adducing the evidence on the side of the Transport Corporation before the Tribunal, the attempt of the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation to mark additional documents, cannot be allowed as it is unfair and it cannot be relied on. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation that regarding the contents in the typed set that is sought to be marked is rejected and this Court proceeded based on the material available in M.C.O.P.No.2692 of 2013 and also the rival submissions. 16. The claimant had marked his salary bills till 2014 and it was discussed in the order passed by the Tribunal stating that after 2012, the salary drawn is shown as "0". The total salary is Rs.32,885/-, out of which, deduction is Rs.15,067/-. After deduction, the carry home salary as on 2 July 2011 was Rs.17,818/- for the month of July. The claimant had marked his salary bills till 2014 and it was discussed in the order passed by the Tribunal stating that after 2012, the salary drawn is shown as "0". The total salary is Rs.32,885/-, out of which, deduction is Rs.15,067/-. After deduction, the carry home salary as on 2 July 2011 was Rs.17,818/- for the month of July. But, subsequently he had not receive salary and as proof of the same, he had marked the salary bill received by him till the date of enquiry before the Tribunal as a series of salary slips. On a perusal of the same, it is found that total salary was Rs.32,447/-, while monthly deduction was Rs.15,067/- after deducting the deduction towards Gratuity, Provided Fund, Income Tax, other loan etc., his carry home salary was Rs.17,380/-.For the purpose of convenient calculation, the salary amount taken by the Tribunal as Rs.17,000/- per month. As per the rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajai Kumar reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 , for calculating the loss of earnings, no amount shall be deducted while computing loss of income. No amount to be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, the carry home salary is taken as such, while calculating loss of income due to permanent disability. The claimant has suffered injuries on 27.06.2011 and from that day onwards he had not been paid salary. The Transport Corporation had adduced evidence disputing the claim of the claimant. No document was marked during the evidence on the side of the Transport Corporation, except a copy of the enquiry report alone was marked, therefore, the salary from 2011 from the date of accident till the date of his superannuation, was taken by the Tribunal. He was 49 years of age on the date of accident. As per the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the injured/claimant, he had retired on attaining superannuation. Therefore, nine years service was left on the date of the accident. During the evidence of R.W.2/the Investigator appointed by the Transport Corporation, no document was marked to prove that the victim/claimant was given job according to his physical strength, as he had been declared as partially permanent disabled. On a perusal of the disability certificate, it is found that he had suffered fracture on his right leg. During the evidence of R.W.2/the Investigator appointed by the Transport Corporation, no document was marked to prove that the victim/claimant was given job according to his physical strength, as he had been declared as partially permanent disabled. On a perusal of the disability certificate, it is found that he had suffered fracture on his right leg. Therefore, the Doctor had opined that the claimant could not stand, but it is a “must” for a person to work as a conductor in a moving bus. Therefore, as per the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajai Kumar (cited supra), the functional disability suffered by the victim/claimant had to be assessed. Representation given by the claimant to the Transport Corporation for providing alternative job, was not considered. Therefore, as per the argument of the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation, the claimant sought salary without work, which cannot be granted. The said argument cannot be accepted. On a perusal of the counter affidavit filed in M.C.O.P.No.2692 of 2013 by the Transport Corporation, it is found that they had taken objection to the injured victim filing claim petition seeking compensation relying on the F.I.R lodged by the driver of the lorry accusing the driver of the Transport Corporation bus. Therefore, it shows that the Conductor was victimised for blaming the driver of the bus for the cause of the accident, the Conductor was an employee of the Transport Corporation. Therefore, for the loss of income from the date of accident 27.06.2011 till the date of superannuation, the amount works out to Rs.17,000/- X 6 = Rs.1,02,000/-. He was under treatment till 2012 and hence the loss of income suffered by the victim is to be calculated as follows: 17. For 65% disability, the Courts can exercise its discretion in reducing 10% as per the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Ankur Kapoor Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd”. Total disability is to be taken as 50%. The claimant was aged 49 years on the date of accident. Therefore, towards future prospects, 30% of the income has to be added with multiplier 13' {Rs.17,000/- + (30% of Rs.17,000/- = Rs.5,100/-) X 12 X 13 X 55/100} = Rs.18,96,180/-. 18. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd”. Total disability is to be taken as 50%. The claimant was aged 49 years on the date of accident. Therefore, towards future prospects, 30% of the income has to be added with multiplier 13' {Rs.17,000/- + (30% of Rs.17,000/- = Rs.5,100/-) X 12 X 13 X 55/100} = Rs.18,96,180/-. 18. From the date of accident till his date of his representation for alternative lesser job, the disability suffered by the claimant was not considered by the Transport Corporation authorities which fact had not been denied either in the appeal or in the enquiry before Tribunal. The Tribunal had also observed that for 34 months, the claimant being Conductor, had not been paid salary. Towards partial permanent disability, even though the disability certificate issued by the P.W.2/Doctor under Ex.P17 who opined that the claimant suffered 65%, the Doctor in his cross examination admitted that he had not treated the injured claimant. Therefore, not believing the percentage of disability stated by P.W.2, the Tribunal had reduced it to 30% and calculated compensation based on percentage of disability. The loss of income due to disability at 30% was assessed at Rs.1,50,000/-. For 34 months, the claimant was not paid salary as per his evidence, for which the Tribunal had allotted Rs.3,00,000/- as loss of income for the period of treatment and for subsequent period. 19. On a perusal of the records in M.C.O.P.No.2692 of 2013, it is found that the claimant had incurred transport charges at Rs.38,725/- as per Ex.P8 and the same can be rounded as Rs.40,000/-. This Court, as appellate Court allots amounts on different heads as follows: Medical bills under Ex.P7 Rs.35,103.50/- is rounded to Rs.35,000/- and Transportation expenses Rs.38,725/- is rounded to Rs.40,000/-. As per the discussion and the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.2692 of 2013 by the Tribunal and the evidence of the claimant who has stated 34 months, salary not paid. The Tribunal had allotted Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment and subsequent period is Rs.3,00,000/-. This Court, on a perusal of Ex.P14 from the original records, salary for the month of July 2014 was considered and that the salary was not paid. Therefore, for one month carry home salary was found to be at Rs.17,000/-. Therefore, for 34 months the salary is calculated as follows: Rs.17,000/- X 34 = Rs.5,78,000/- 20. This Court, on a perusal of Ex.P14 from the original records, salary for the month of July 2014 was considered and that the salary was not paid. Therefore, for one month carry home salary was found to be at Rs.17,000/-. Therefore, for 34 months the salary is calculated as follows: Rs.17,000/- X 34 = Rs.5,78,000/- 20. For 65% disability under Ex.P17 is concerned, as per the guidelines issued in Ankur Kapoor Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and also National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in 2017 16 SCC 680 and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajai Kumar reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 , this Court, while assessing the partial permanent disability, has discretion to vary the percentage of disability by 10% based on the opinion of Doctors regarding disability. Therefore, instead of 65%, this Court reduced it by 10%. Therefore the disability is taken as 55%. For 55% of disability, it is calculated as follows: Rs.17,000/- + (30% of income towards future prospects) as the conductor having not been paid salary, and has got promotion as Ticket Examiner, Time Keeper and other promotion job available in the TNSTC having been affected due to the accident suffered by the claimant, this Court takes 30% of the salary to be added towards future prospects. Therefore, 30% of Rs.17,000/- = Rs.5,100/-. = Rs.22,100/- X 12 = Rs.2,65,200/- 21. The age of the victim conductor on the date of accident was 49. Therefore, for the age between 45 and 50, the multiplier will be 13'. The other heads under which compensation was awarded by the claims Tribunal are maintained as such. S. No Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs) Award confirmed or enhanced or granted 1. Disability 1,50,000/- 18,96,180/- Enhanced 2. Pain & Sufferings 2,00,000/- 2,00,000/- Confirmed 3. Transportation 50,000/- 40,000/- Reduced 4. Extra Nourishment 50,000/- 50,000/- Confirmed 5. Attender charges 50,000/- 50,000/- Confirmed 6. Medical bills 1,00,000/- 35,000/- Reduced 7. Loss of earning 3,00,000/- 5,78,000/- Enhanced 8. Future Medical Expenses 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/- Confirmed Total Rs.10,00,000/- Rs.29,49,180/-(rounded off to Rs.29,50,000/-) Enhanced by Rs.19,50,000/- 22. Disability 1,50,000/- 18,96,180/- Enhanced 2. Pain & Sufferings 2,00,000/- 2,00,000/- Confirmed 3. Transportation 50,000/- 40,000/- Reduced 4. Extra Nourishment 50,000/- 50,000/- Confirmed 5. Attender charges 50,000/- 50,000/- Confirmed 6. Medical bills 1,00,000/- 35,000/- Reduced 7. Loss of earning 3,00,000/- 5,78,000/- Enhanced 8. Future Medical Expenses 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/- Confirmed Total Rs.10,00,000/- Rs.29,49,180/-(rounded off to Rs.29,50,000/-) Enhanced by Rs.19,50,000/- 22. In the result, C.M.A.No.158 of 2021 filed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is dismissed and C.M.A.No.3354 of 2019 filed by the claimant is partly allowed and the total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced to Rs.29,50,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the modified award amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.2692 of 2013. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount fixed by the Tribunal, after adjusting the amount already withdrawn if any. The claimant is directed to pay necessary Court fee, if any, on the enhanced compensation. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.