T. Raja, J.

This batch of appeals and cross objection is directed against the awards passed in two different cases arising out of two separate accidents. In the first set, aggrieved by the impugned award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.2138 of 2012 dated 1.9.2014 awarding a sum of Rs. 5,73,000/-, as against the claim of Rs. 15,00,000/-, the Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited has filed C.M.A.No.1461 of 2016 aggrieved over the quantum and the claimant has filed C.M.A.No.732 of 2015 for enhancement of the compensation.

1.1. In the second set, aggrieved by the impugned award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in M.C.O.P. No.5418 of 2011 dated 20.1.2015 awarding a sum of Rs. 4,04,000/-, as against the claim of Rs. 6,00,000/-, the United India Insurance Company Limited has filed C.M.A. No.1807 of 2015 questioning the quantum of compensation and the claimant has filed Cross Objection No.42 of 2016 for enhancement of the compensation. Hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as “the Transport Corporation”, “the Insurance Company”, “the First Claimant” and “the Second Claimant”.

2. In the first set, the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation submitted that when the bus bearing Registration No.TN 01 N 9711, plying on the route No.1A on its scheduled trip from Tiruvanmiyur to Tiruvottiyur, on 16.3.2012 at about 10.10 A.M., stopped at the Mylapore Luz bus stop for alighting and boarding of passengers, the driver of the bus, after the process was over, slowly moved the bus from the bus stop and at this point of time, a male passenger hurriedly tried to board the bus through the rear side foot board, however, after seeing the reckless act of the intending male passenger through the left side mirror, the driver applied the brake to enable the passenger to board safely into the bus. But the passenger did not hold the handle of the board properly and accidentally, being hit by a stone, fell down on the road and sustained injuries. That shows that the accident occurred only due to the gross negligence on the part of the injured passenger. Soon thereafter, he was rushed to St.Isabel's Hospital, Chennai on humanitarian basis. The above chain of events would show that the accident occurred only due to the negligent act of the injured passenger and he alone was responsible for the accident and not the driver of the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation, which was made liable to pay the compensation to the injured. But this aspect was completely overlooked by the Tribunal.

3. Continuing his arguments, he submitted that the Tribunal, ignoring the evidence of the driver of the bus, who was examined as R.W.1, that the accident was invited only by the injured while he was attempting to board the vehicle, placing reliance on the charge sheet filed against the driver of the bus, has wrongly held that the testimony of R.W.1 was neither supported by any independent witness nor corroborated by any document and on that basis proceeded to hold that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Again with regard to the quantum, the Tribunal, placing reliance on the discharge summary-Ex.P2 issued by St.Isabel's Hospital showing that the First Claimant had sustained crush injury to chest, bilateral multiple rib fractures, bilateral scapular fracture and left humerus fracture, for which he had taken treatment as an in-patient from 16.3.2012 to 27.3.2012 and again from 20.4.2012 to 23.4.2012 in the same hospital and further underwent a surgery for the fracture of proximal humerus left side, thereby ORIF with philos plate was done, has fixed the partial permanent disability at 54%