JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.441 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirunelveli, dated 27.08.2012.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.441 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirunelveli, dated 27.08.2012.)

1. Both the Appeals are arising out of the same order, dated 27.08.2012, in M.C.O.P.No.441 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirunelveli.

2. C.M.A.(MD)No.1326 of 2013 has been filed by the Claimant and C.M.A.(MD)No.228 of 2014 has been filed by the Transport Corporation.

3. Brief substance of the petition in M.C.O.P.No.441 of 2011, is as follows:-

The petitioner was aged about 19 years at the time of accident and she worked as a police in Manimutharu Battalion and she was earning Rs.11,500/- per month. On 26.08.2011, at about 2.00 p.m., when the petitioner was travelling in a Bus bearing Registration No.TN-72-N-0861 that belonged to the third respondent, the bus driver tried to overtake a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-72-J-2686 that belonged to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, the lorry driver in a rash and negligent manner applied sudden brake without any reason, the bus driver could not control the bus and hit against the back side of the lorry. The petitioner sustained injuries and she was admitted in Karthick Nursing Home at Perumalpuram and she undertook treatment as inpatient for 20 days. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation.

4. Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.441 of 2011, is as follows:-

The accident is not due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent's lorry driver. The third respondent's Bus driver is responsible for the accident. Age, profession, income, mode of accident, injuries, treatment particulars and expenses for the treatment are to be proved. The first respondent's driver was not having valid driving licence. The first respondent vehicle was not having fitness certificate. Permit, policy conditions are violated. The second respondent is not liable to pay compensation and the claim is excessive.

5. Brief substance of the counter filed by the third respondent in M.C.O.P.No.441 of 2011, is as follows:-

The manner of accident as narrated in the petition is wrong. The driver of the third respondent is not responsible for the accident. The lorry driver is responsible for the accident. Criminal complaint was lodged only against the lorry driver. Age, profession, income, manner of accident, injuries, treatment particulars and expenses for the treatment are to be proved by the petitioner. This respondent was impleaded only as a formal party. The claim is excessive.

6. On the side of the petitioner, two witnesses were examined and thirteen documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, three witnesses were examined and one document was marked.

7. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,71,704/- as compensation. Against the same, the third respondent/ Transport Corporation has filed an Appeal in C.M.A.(MD)No.228 of 2014 and the claimant/Shanthi has filed an appeal in C.M.A.(MD)No.1326 of 2013, for enhancement of compensation.

8. On the side of the claimant, it is stated that the Tribunal ought to have granted Rs.72,000/- towards loss of income for the treatment period. The Tribunal ought to have granted Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of amenities, Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and sufferings, Rs.20,000/- for transport expenses, Rs.20,000/- for extra nourishment, Rs.95,000/- for Disability and Rs.25,000/- for attendant charges and prayed the amount to be enhanced.

9. On the side of the Transport Corporation, it is