JUDGMENT (Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award, dated 15.11.2018, passed in M.C.O.P.No.1084 of 2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special District Court, Thanjavur.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2018, passed in M.C.O.P.No.1084 of 2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special District Court, Thanjavur. 2. The Transport Corporation is the appellant herein, challenging the award of the Tribunal made in M.C.O.P.No.1084 of 2017. 3. The respondent herein is the claim petitioner filed the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the road transport accident on 28.09.2016. The Tribunal on consideration of both the oral and documentary evidence, has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,45,797/- and hence, the Transport corporation has filed the appeal on two grounds, namely, negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry (the another vehicle involved in the accident) and on the point of quantum of compensation. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records. 5. The claim petitioner both in her petition as well as in her evidence as P.W.1, has deposed that on 28.09.2016 at about 09.50 p.m., the petitioner was travelling as a passenger in the respondent corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-3327 from Devakottai into order to come to Trichy in Karaikudi to Trichy Main Road. While the bus was going near Thirumayam cut road, the bus was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner from south to north and tried to overtake the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-07-B-0997 which was going in front of the bus and dashed right side body of the lorry. In this accident, many of the passengers were sustained injuries and one of the passenger died in the bus. The petitioner was sustained fracture in her both legs and multiple injuries all over her body. He was at once taken to Pudukottai Government Hospital for first aid treatment and then she was admitted in TMCH Hospital, Thanjavur. For further treatment, she was admitted in N.H. Ortho Care, Ramanathapuram as inpatient for continuous treatment. 6. The petitioner was sustained fracture in her both legs and multiple injuries all over her body. He was at once taken to Pudukottai Government Hospital for first aid treatment and then she was admitted in TMCH Hospital, Thanjavur. For further treatment, she was admitted in N.H. Ortho Care, Ramanathapuram as inpatient for continuous treatment. 6. It is her further case that while the bus was going near Thirumayam cut road, the driver of the above said bus, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and tried to overtake the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-07-B-0997 which was going in front of the lorry and dashed the right side body of the lorry. Due to the accident, the petitioner sustained severe injuries and admitted in the hospital. Hence, this petition. 7. In the counter statement filed by the appellant / Transport Corporation, before the Tribunal, it is averred that the accident was happened only due to the carelessness of the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-07-B-0997, who drove the vehicle in a negligent manner, suddenly turned his vehicle on the right and dashed against the left body of the respondent's bus. 8. It is seen from the records that during trial the petitioner, Saleema was examined as P.W.1 through whom, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 were marked. Dr.Rethinasabapathy was examined as P.W.2, through whom, Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11 were marked. On the side of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced. 9. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the claim petitioner / injured, I find that the petitioner Saleema was examined as P.W.1 and she has stated in her evidence that the accident was happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent's bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-3327. The copy of FIR is marked as Ex.P.1 and it is also registered against the driver of the respondent's bus. There is no contra evidence to show that the accident was not happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent's bus. The driver of the respondent's bus was not examined before the Court. There is no evidence to show that the accident was happened due to the carelessness of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-07-B-0997. 10. The driver of the respondent's bus was not examined before the Court. There is no evidence to show that the accident was happened due to the carelessness of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-07-B-0997. 10. In the instant case, the respondent / claim petitioner is the passenger of the Government bus bearing Registration No.TN-45- N-3327 and being the injured witness, she is competent to speak about the manner of the accident as an occurrence witness. For the reasons best known, the drivers of both the vehicles were not examined before the Tribunal, assumes significance. 11. The Tribunal has directed the respondent to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner since the Tribunal found the driver of the bus is rash and negligent and accordingly, the negligence was fixed on the driver of the bus by the Tribunal based on the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be found fault with, especially, when the driver of the Transport Corporation bus, has not been examined before the Tribunal, for the unknown reasons and such a finding cannot be found fault with and hence, the finding rendered by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. 12. On the point of quantum of compensation, after hearing both the parties, I find that to substantiate the injuries and disabilities, the petitioner filed Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3, discharge summaries, Ex.P.4, Photos, Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8, Medical Bills, Ex.P.9, Doctor's Prescriptions, Ex.P.10, Disability Certificate and Ex.P.11, X-ray. Ex.P.10, disability certificate shows that the petitioner sustained 57% partial permanent disability. 12. On the point of quantum of compensation, after hearing both the parties, I find that to substantiate the injuries and disabilities, the petitioner filed Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3, discharge summaries, Ex.P.4, Photos, Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8, Medical Bills, Ex.P.9, Doctor's Prescriptions, Ex.P.10, Disability Certificate and Ex.P.11, X-ray. Ex.P.10, disability certificate shows that the petitioner sustained 57% partial permanent disability. Dr.Rethinasabapathy, who issued the disability certificate Ex.P.10, was examined as P.W.2 and he has categorically deposed that initially the injured was treated as inpatient from 29.09.2016 to 04.10.2016 and subsequently in a private hospital from 04.10.2016 to 21.10.2016 for 17 days and underwent surgery for the fractures in right leg and metal rod and screws have been fixed and in the left anklet, necessary wiring screws have also been made and thereafter she was taken treatment for 18 days from 04.02.2017 to 21.02.2017 and assessed the disability for the mal-union of left thigh and left leg which caused inconvenience to attend the natural call as 3% disability and for the restriction of the left anklet to 45 degree, another 15% disability was fixed and for the restriction of more than 40 degree on the left knee, another 9% was assessed and for shortening of the left thigh bone, 12% disability was assessed and for the fracture of left femur bone and shortening, another 9% disability was assessed and for the immovability in the restriction on the left anklet and shortening of 2 cm, another 9% disability was assessed and thereby, the permanent disability in the partial nature is fixed at 57%. 13. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a humanbeing. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely, to remain for the remainder life of the injured. 14. From the evidence, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the respondent / claimant has not suffered any functional disability and accordingly, awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards injuries and 57% partial permanent disability resulted in hospitalization of 34 days and the same is confirmed. The compensation of Rs.1,81,997/- awarded towards medical expenses is based on Ex.P.8, medical bills, which is also confirmed. The compensation of Rs.1,81,997/- awarded towards medical expenses is based on Ex.P.8, medical bills, which is also confirmed. For Transportation charges, the compensation is reduced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. For extra nourishment, the compensation is reduced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. For attendant charges during treatment is enhanced from Rs.6,800/- to Rs.10,000./- Attendant charges after treatment for a period of six months is reduced from Rs. 36,000/- to Rs.18,000/-. The compensation towards loss of income for a period of six months is fixed at Rs.36,000/- [6000 x 6 = 36,000]. For pain and sufferings, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded and for loss of amenities, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded. The compensation awarded towards loss of expectation of life is deleted and hence the compensation is reduced from Rs.5,45,797/- to Rs.4,37,997/- and hence the finding of composite negligence arrived at by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed and the appeal is partly allowed on the point of quantum of compensation. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1084 of 2017 is modified as follows:- Sl. No. Particulars Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1 Towards injuries and 57% partial permanent disability Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- 2 Medical Expenses Rs. 1,81,997/- Rs. 1,81,997/- 3 Transportation Charges Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 15,000 /- 4 Extra-nourishment Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 5 Attendant Charges during treatment period Rs. 6,800/- Rs. 10,000/- 6 Attendant Charges after treatment period of six months Rs. 36,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7 Towards loss of income for six months Rs. 36,000/- Rs. 36,000/- 8 Pain and sufferings Rs. 75,000/- Rs. 50,000/- 9 Loss of amenities Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 10 Loss of expectation of life Rs. 50,000/- Rs. ---- Total Rs. 5,45,797/- Rs. 4,37,997/- The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.5,45,797/- to Rs.4,37,997/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 15. In the result, the finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant bus, by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed on the point of quantum of compensation. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.5,45,797/- to Rs.4,37,997/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. It is seen that the appellant / Insurance company has deposited the entire award amount before the Tribunal. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.5,45,797/- to Rs.4,37,997/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. It is seen that the appellant / Insurance company has deposited the entire award amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appellant insurance company is entitled to withdraw the excess amount, if any. The respondent / claimant is at liberty to withdraw the same, after following due process of law. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.