The assessment of compensation in personal injury cases should consider the extent of disability and the claimant's occupation or livelihood.

1. The appellant / claimant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2007, made in M.C.O.P.No.445 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal Sub-Court, Thiruvannamalai.

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

The appellant/claimant had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.445 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal Sub-Court, Thiruvannamalai, against the respondent Transport Corporation, claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

3. It was submitted that on 20.11.2001, at about 01.00 p.m., when the claimant was walking on the extreme left of the Chinnakadai Street, near Moolai Mariamman Kovil at Vettavalam, the respondent's Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN32 N0365, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant. As a result, the claimant sustained injuries all over his body. Hence, the claimant filed a claim petition against the respondent Transport Corporation, who is the owner of the bus bearing registration No.TN32 N0365.

4. The respondent Transport Corporation, in their counter affidavit, had submitted that the accident was not caused due to any rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondent's bus, as alleged in the claim. The averments made in the claim petition regarding nature of injuries, medical treatment taken and disability were also not admitted. Further, it was submitted that the claim was excessive.

5. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed one issue namely:

i. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation If so, to what extent.

6. On the claimant's side, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and four documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P4 namely copy of FIR, wound certificate, permanent disability certificate and X-ray report. On the respondent's side no witness was let in and no document was marked.

7. P.W.1 the claimant had adduced evidence, which is on similar lines to the statements contained in the claim petition regarding manner of accident and in support of his evidence, he head marked Exs.P1 to P4. On scrutiny of Ex.P1, it is seen that the FIR had been registered against the driver of the bus. The Tribunal, on observing that the accident had occurred in a crowded area, opined that if the driver of the bus had driven it in a careful manner, he could have averted the accident. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P1 and evidence of P.W.1 and on considering that no contra evidence had been let in on the respondent's side to rebut the claim of P.W.1 regarding manner of accident, held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondent's bus.

8. On scrutiny of Ex.P2, it is seen that the claimant had sustained fracture of 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th metatarsal bone in his right leg. P.W.2, Doctor, had adduced evidence that he had examined the claimant and observed that there was defuse swelling of the right foot with skin deep abrasion measuring 1/4 X 1/2 X 0.1 inches. He deposed that the claimant had sustained fracture of his metatarsal bones and certified that the claimant had sustained 25% disability. However, the Tribunal, on holding that the assessment of disability by the Doctor was on the higher side, held that the disability sustained by the claimant was 10%. The Tribunal, on holding that the age of the claimant was between 45 and 50 years and on taking his notional income as Rs.18,000/- per annum and on adopting a multiplier of 13, awarded a sum of Rs.23,400/-under the head of loss of earning capacity, Rs.5,000/- was awarded for pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/-was awarded towards medical expenses, loss of income during medical treatment period and for attender charges. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.33,400/-as compensation to the claimant and directed the respondent Transpo