The main legal point established in the judgment is the erroneous assessment of compensation by the Tribunal based on the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner.

The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 12.03.2007, made in M.C.O.P.No.225 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Krishnagiri, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,03,990/- with 7.5% interest per annum, from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of compensation.

2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/respondent has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal.

3. The short facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner, P.Jayakumar was aged about 32 years and was working as Field Assistant in Filaria and Malaria Clinic at Government Hospital, Tiruppattur.

4. On 26.05.2005, the petitioner boarded a TNSTC Bus bearing registration No.TN29 N1280 at Tiruppattur to go to Krishnagiri. While the said bus was proceeding on the Tiruppattur to Krishnagiri road, at about 8.30 p.m., the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, suddenly hit the left side parapet wall of the bridge situated on the west of the Thoppalagoundanoor Junction road and then dashed against a parked vehicle. Due to the impact, the petitioner, who was travelling as a passenger in the said bus, sustained grievous injuries over the left middle finger, right thumb, left side chest, fourth toe of right foot, left knee and the nerves of his right hand thumb was crushed. The accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said bus.

5. The injured petitioner was admitted in the Government Hospital at Tiruppattur on 27.05.2005 and was treated as an inpatient for two days ie.27.05.2005 and 28.05.2005. Thereafter, he took treatment in the Padma Poly Clinic at Krishnagiri, as inpatient for three days from 06.06.2005 to 08.06.2005 and underwent plastic surgery and FPL was done for the crush injury of his right hand thumb. During this period, he has spent Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.3,000/-towards transportation and Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment.

6. Due to the accident, he is unable to lift or carry any objects with his right hand, often gets pain in the chest and has difficulty in breathing. He is also unable to do any hard work as before. As such, the respondent, being the owner-cum-insurer of the said bus is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- from the respondent together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

7. Regarding the said accident, a criminal case has been registered by the Kandhili Police Station against the driver of the said bus, in Crime No.316/2005 under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C.

8. The respondent, in his counter, has resisted the claim denying the averments in the claim regarding the age, occupation and income of the petitioner. The manner of the accident, as alleged in the claim,has also been denied by the respondent. It has been stated that the bus driver drove the bus slowly and cautiously and kept the bus on the left side of the road, but as one cow had suddenly crossed the road, the driver of the bus in order to avoid dashing against the cow, had tried to reduce the speed of the bus and stop the bus, but in spite of this, the accident had occurred. It has also been contended that the petitioner should prove that he had travelled in the said bus. The respondent has also not admitted the claim of the petitioner as regards permanent disability, pain and suffering, loss of future earning power, mental agony, future medical expenses, extra nourishment and has therefore submitted that the claim is excessive and has to be dismissed with costs.

9. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely:

(i) Who