ORDER
Radhakrishna Rao, J.
1. A boy aged about 21 years, studying the II year B.Com., involved in a motor accident which ultimately resulted in the amputation of his left foot to some extent, claimed damages of Rs. 1,11,000/- in O.P.No. 397/86 filed Under Section 110-A of the M.V. Act and he also filed another 6.P. No. 398/86 Under Section 92-A of M.V. Act claiming damages of Rs. 7,500/-. After considering the evidence, having found that there is rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle and having found that the amputation as stated by him is supported by medical evidence, the Tribunal granted inall Rs. 76,000/-as compensation, viz.,Rs.68,500/ – under Section 110-A and Rs. 7,500/- under Section 92-A of the M.V. Act. Aggrieved for grant of the said compensations, the respondant-The General Manager, Anna Transport Corporation, Salem, Tamilnadu State filed these two appeals.
2. The fact that P.W.1 who is the claimant received the injuries is not in doubt 0and that he has suffered permanent disability also is not in doubt The main ground that has been taken by the appellant is that the respondent-claimant was a passenger in the bus and he jumped out of the bus when the vehicle was in the process of being reversed for the purpose of parking in the bus-stand and thus the accident is purely the result of rash and negligent act of the respondentclaimant in alighting from the bus before it was stopped. The lower Court relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3. In defence, R.W.1 the driver of the vehicle alone was examined and he was found by the lower Court as an interested witness. P.W.3 is also a passenger in the bus. P.W.3 described the manner how the accident took place. It is also stated that P.W.3 took the injured to the Government Hospital from the place of the accident. The presence of P.W.3 at the time of accident has been established and his travelling along with the claimant also has been established. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of P.W.3 and it is corroborating with the evidence of P.W.1, whereas R.W.1’s evidence is found to be partisan and interested. As against the interested evidence of R.W.I, the evidence of P.W.3 can be accepted as truthful evidence. Therefore, it can be said that the accident is due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle.
3. With regard to the quantum Under Section 92-A of the M.V. Act, the claimant is entitled for Rs. 7,500/-. With regard to the disability portion, P.W.2 the Doctor who treated the injured and who conducted operations on him has stated in detail and also the disability that has been suffered by him has been personally seen by the Court at the time when he gave the evidence. So the disability that has been suffered is a permanent disability and he is an young boy. So the amount that has been granted cannot be said to be on the high side or cannot be said to be unreasonable one and it is a reasonable compensation. I find no grounds to interfere with the findings of the lower Court.
4. The C.M.As. are therefore, dismissed. No costs.