The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of fair and justifiable compensation for injuries and medical expenses under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166.

1. The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / Transport Corporation against the award and decree dated 19.02.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1821 of 2006, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IInd Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

On 10.02.2006, at around 7.55 hours, the petitioner had attempted to board the bus bearing Registration No.TN01-N-1591 along with other passengers at the Kazipattur bus stop on the Old Mahapalipuram Road, when at that time, the driver started the vehicle all of a sudden without the signal from the conductor, as a result, the claimant had sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the claimant had filed a claim petition against the respondent for compensation a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest.

3. The respondent Transport Corporation had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent denied that the bus was driven by its driver in a rash and reckless manner, actually, the driver started the bus after getting a whistle from the conductor, at that moment, the claimant all of a sudden stepped down from the bus which was in motion and tripped over the front steps and fell down on the road, as such the accident occurred. Immediately, he was taken to the Malar Hospital and admitted thereon. The age, income and occupation of the claimant are denied. In the said accident, contributory negligence is attributed.

4. On the pleas of both parties, the Tribunal had framed four issues for consideration, namely;

“(i) Whether the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the M.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No.TN01-N-1591?

(ii) Whether the respondent is liable to pay the compensation?

(iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation?

(iv) To what relief?”

5. On the side of the claimant two witnesses had been examined and Exs.P1 to P16 were marked.

On the side of the respondent no witness was examined and no document was marked.

6. PW1 had adduced evidence stating that on 10.02.2006 at about 7.55 hours, she had attempted to board the bus bearing Registration No.TN01-N1591 at the Kazhipattur Bus stop on the Old Mahapalipuram Road, at that time, the driver had started the bus without getting a whistle from the conductor, as such she lost her balance and fell down on the road. PW2-Investigating officer stated that a FIR and charge sheet were filed against the driver of the bus. PW1 further stated that both bones of her left leg had fractured besides she had sustained injuries on her right foot toes, the fourth and fifth, both hands and multiple injuries sustained all over the body. She had undergone treatment at Malar Hospital as inpatient for a period of about 25 days. During the medical treatment period, she had undergone surgical operation again under two occasions, she was admitted in the same hospital as an inpatient for a period of about

10 days. She had spent a sum of Rs.2,06,116/- towards medical expenses. The doctor had assessed the disability as 65%. He also spoke on the same line about the nature of the claimant's injuries.

7. On considering the evidence of the witnesses, the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.4,10,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

8. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has filed the above appeal to scale down the compensation.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal had awarded Rs.60,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- granted towards loss of earning, transport and mental agony to the petitioner and her family members, which are not pertinent in this case. Actually, the accident had been invited by the claimant in a negligent manner.

10. Learned counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant had sustained bone fracture injuries and she had undergone medical treatment more than one month as inpatient. Thereafter, she underwent treatment as outpatient for a lengthy period. She had spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- toward