This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company as against the award of Rs.11,49,900/-, granted in favour of the claimant, for the injuries sustained by him in the accident, which occurred on 14.01.2007, when he was travelling as a passenger in the bus insured with the appellant. The award is challenged on the question of quantum as well as negligence.

2. Heard Mr.T. Ravichandran, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Mukund R. Pandian, learned counsel for the claimant/1st respondent.

3. Mr.T. Ravichandran, learned counsel for the appellant would, firstly, submit that the accident occurred as the claimant tried to get down from the moving bus, consequent to which, he fell down and sustained injuries. Therefore, the bus driver is, in no way, responsible for the accident. Secondly, he would submit that Rs.4000/-determined as the monthly income of a 17 year old boy is on the higher side, in the absence of any proof regarding income. According to him, the amounts awarded under other heads are also on the higher side. Therefore, the award amount has to be reduced.

4. On the other hand, Mr.Mukund R. Pandian, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimant would submit that because of the injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant has been fixed with a separate bag for collection of motion and for passing urine. Further, the claimant is unable to do his personal works on his own and he has to depend on others. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel would submit that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced.

5. Heard the parties and perused the records carefully.

6. Taking into consideration, the evidence of the claimant that he was seated near the entrace of the bus and as the bus was driven rashly and negligently and at great speed, he was thrown out and the rear wheel of bus ran over him resulting in his sustaining fracture injuries in his hip, left leg and left hand; taking note of filing of FIR, Ex-P1, against the driver of the bus and the absence of rebuttal evidence on the side of the appellant, the Tribunal rightly found that the bus was driven rashly and negligently. The Tribunal also observed that P.W.1's evidence remained uncontroverted as neither the Driver nor the Conductor or any of the passengers was examined. Therefore, the finding rendered by the Tribunal cannot be set aside and it has to be concluded that negligence was rightly attributed to the driver of the bus and the liability to pay the compensation was justifiably fixed on the appellant.

7. As far as quantum is concerned, what is to be seen is the status of the person, who got injured. The claimant was studying in Plus Two, that too, in a well-known and reputed educational institution in Anthiyur. Most parents, across the State, aspire to admit their children in the said school for securing high marks in Plus Two Examination and the claimant was also admitted in the said school so that he would excel in his studies. Though the Tribunal determined the monthly income at Rs.4000/-, Mr.T. Ravichandran, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Sanjay Verma V. Haryana Roadways reported in 2014 3 SCC 210 wherein for an injured, aged about 25 years, a sum of Rs.41,300/-was fixed as annual income. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant would draw the attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by the Honourable Apex Court in V. Mekala V. M.Malathi reported in 2014 2 TN MAC 6 (SC) wherein the monthly income of a 16 year old, 11th standard student, was determined at Rs.18,000/. However, this Court, following the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Syed Sadiq V. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd reported in 2014 (1) TN MAC 459 (SC), wherein Rs.6500/-was fixed as the monthly income for a vegetable vendor, who sustained injuries in the accident, which took place in 2008, re-determines the month