13.Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Erode, has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus and failed to see that no police officer or eyewitness had been examined to prove the negligence on the part of the appellant's driver. It was contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of RW1 and failed to note that the claimant had ridden his moped in a rash and negligent manner and as such ought to have fixed the entire or atleast contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. It was also contended that the Tribunal erred in relying on Exhibits P6 to P10treatment records, as it was marked by the claimant, without examining the author of the documents. It was contended that the Tribunal erred in relying on evidence of PW3, Doctor, who had not treated the claimant and erred in fixing the income of the claimant at Rs.2,500/- and multiplier at 15 and in awarding a sum of Rs.6,000/- for loss of earning for 20% disability, without any basis. It was contended that the Tribunal after awarding Rs.30,000/- for 20% disability erred in awarding Rs.60,000/- for loss of earning due to disability. It was contended that the award passed was excessive and hence it was prayed to scale down the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
