The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Section 166, and the principles of assessing compensation for personal injury, including the need for sympathy and guesswork in determining disability caused by accidents.

Prabha Sridevan, J.

1. The claimant is represented by his wife, his next friend because he has become a living vegetable on account of the accident that took place on 13-05-1997. He was working in Crystal Knit Processes and he was going to his room from his place of work when the bus belonging to the appellant-Corporation hit him and he was caught under the body of the bus. He claimed a compensation of Rs.41,46,500/-which was restricted to a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-.

2. The claimant sustained head injury, multiple brain stem injury which resulted in nerve palsy etc. He had been treated by the Doctors attached to a Private Hospital at Bhavani, C.K. Hospital, Erode and K.G. Hospital Coimbatore and a leading neurologist from Coimbatore. He was an inpatient from 13-05-1997 to 21-05-1997 and thereafter from 21-05-1997 to 30-06-1997. The Tribunal on a consideration of the materials placed before it awarded a compensation of Rs.26,72,337/-directing the claimants to pay the extra court-fee totally within one month.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation submitted that the multiplier adopted was very high and further there was evidence only to show that the claimant was earning a sum of Rs.9500/-and without any evidence for it had fixed the monthly income as Rs.12,000/-.

4. The learned counsel submitted that the multiplicand has been fixed at a high rate. The Tribunal ought to have adopted a lower multiplier and it was not have been proper to adopt the higher multiplier. The learned counsel would further submit that the Tribunal had erred in awarding Rs.50,000/-towards disability without following the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Cholan Roadways Corporation Limited Vs. Ahmed Thambi (2006 (4) CTC 433) has held that the award for loss of earning capacity and loss of disability cannot be granted separately. The learned counsel submitted that therefore, the award requires reduction.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand would submit that at the time of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the claimant had partial vision but now there is total loss of vision. The learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal had taken note of his physical condition and also posed specific questions to the Doctor and it is only thereafter, that the Tribunal held that it should be treated as 100% disability. The learned counsel submitted that for the person who is 34 years old, adoption of multiplier 17 is correct. The learned counsel submitted that the claimant had become a mere vegetable and therefore, a higher multiplier must be adopted and the Tribunal had failed to do so. When we take into account all this, the learned counsel submitted that the award does not deserve any interference.

6. The third respondent is the Insurance company of the vehicle driven by the claimant. The appellant submitted that even if the compensation is confirmed on the ground of contributory negligence, the Tribunal ought to have found that the injured was also partly responsible for the accident. P.W.3 is the eye-witness and he had stated that it was the bus which came at a high speed and hit the claimant Muralidharan and dragged him for a distance and therefore, it was only the bus driver who was responsible for the accident. The Tribunal has noted that the evidence elicited in the cross-examination does not in any way dilute the effect of the aggressive driving of the accused. Therefore, the finding that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver deserves to be confirmed. Further from Ex-P3 is the rough sketch it is seen that the bus has dashed the TVS 50 on which the claimant was driving, from behind. Therefore, it is clear that it is only the bus driver who has driven rashly and negligently which dashed against the injured claimant which resulted in very grievous injuries.

7. Now we come to the quantum. The respondent is 34 years old. He was working in Crystal Knit Processes as a Ma