Judgment R. L. Anand, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and it has been directed against the order dated 30.1.1996, passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Panipat, which awarded a sum of Rs.8,34,730 with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 12 per cent to the respondent Gary Michael Powell, from the date of the filing of the petition till payment and the insurance company was held jointly and severally responsible along with respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. So far as the accident part is concerned, it is not being disputed by the insurance company. The insurance company has also not challenged the finding of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal with regard to the negligence of the driver. 3. The challenge by the insurance company appellant, is only with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 4. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8,34,730 as compensation for the reasons given in para Nos.16 to 24 of the impugned award, which are quoted as follows: "issue No.2 (16) In support of his case, the petitioner, Gary Michael Powell, when examined as PW 1 has stated that he suffered multiple injuries/fractures caused in this accident and his statement to that effect stands corroborated by the testimony of Balwant Singh, PW 8. Even according to Dr. Tajinder Kumar, PW 3, a Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, panipat, when on 21.7.1993, at 7.30 a. m. he examined this injured, he found that his nose and mouth were bleeding. He also detected that one of his upper teeth was missing and it was a permanent loss of the same, whereas this injured had also suffered loosening of the other teeth, as mentioned in report, Exh. PH, the correct copy of the medico-legal report. For the same there is nothing to doubt the claim of the petitioner to the effect that he had suffered multiple injuries/fractures in this vehicular road accident and it is the settled law that he is entitled to receive compensation for the same. (17) As far as the amount of compensation is concerned, as per statement of injured petitioner Gary Michael Powell, pw 1, after the accident he was rushed to Civil Hospital, Panipat and therefrom he was shifted to All India Institute of medical Sciences. (17) As far as the amount of compensation is concerned, as per statement of injured petitioner Gary Michael Powell, pw 1, after the accident he was rushed to Civil Hospital, Panipat and therefrom he was shifted to All India Institute of medical Sciences. New Delhi, and after treatment and X-ray, he was taken to east-West Medical Centre, New Delhi, and remained admitted there for nine days and was discharged only on 30.7.93. Even some operations were performed for the treatment of the injuries, as his nose and jaw was fractured. Even his mouth was kept under wire shut, due to the fracture of the jaw and he lost two teeth from the upper law. In addition to that his right ear was affected and a ventilator was created in order to enable him to hear and still he has got some problem in speech and for all these reasons he had to stay in India for about seven weeks after his discharge from the hospital and had spent a sum of rs.40,000 in getting treatment in East-West Medical Centre, New Delhi, vide bills Exhs. P-1 to P-4. Moreover, he had paid Rs.11,000 to Dr. Setia, whereas vide hotel bills D-1 to D-12, he paid a sum of Rs.51,000. He had also to spend a lot on account of special diet; taxi charges and even suffered loss of earnings to the tune of 3,000 U. S. Dollars and since he was not fully cured in india, when he went back to New York, he was treated by Dr. Marty Schneider and paid 5,000 U. S. Dollars to him for treatment and had also to spend 1,200 u. S. Dollars on account of fare to and fro India to U. S. A. As he left India for u. S. A. on 21.11.1993 and had to come back in January for making his statement in the court. Moreover, according to him, his nose is also permanently damaged due to this accident and some time his speech aiso gets blurred. (18) In support of his case, the petitioner has also produced Dr. C. S. Anand, pw 5, of Delhi and according to him, the petitioner had suffered injuries of nose and maxilla of both sides and was treated at East-West Medical Centre, new Delhi, wherein he remained admitted from 21.7.1993 to 30.7.1993 and he along with Dr. Setia treated him jointly. C. S. Anand, pw 5, of Delhi and according to him, the petitioner had suffered injuries of nose and maxilla of both sides and was treated at East-West Medical Centre, new Delhi, wherein he remained admitted from 21.7.1993 to 30.7.1993 and he along with Dr. Setia treated him jointly. They had also consulted Dr. Balagna and Dr. Diwan Chand Aggarwal for x-rays. He has also proved Exhs. PW 5/a to 6 the certificate issued by Dr. Vijay Rawat, in this regard and also stated that even after discharge from the hospital, the petitioner stayed in India for three months, for follow-up action, necessitated due to the operations and treatment. Furthermore according to him this patient was also operated for infection of the right ear and because of that he has suffered permanent damage on account of fracture of jaw, causing speech problem. According to him, two of his teeth which were mobile, had been removed and the damage to the hearing, which is a permanent loss is about 25 to 35 DB. Not only that, because of the maxillary fractures, he had suffered permanent defect in his speech and the disability of the ear is 30 to 40 per cent. (19) Dr. C. S. Anand further deposed that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.49,430 up to 30.7.1993 for hospital charges, besides other payments received by them individually and because of the fracture, he had wiring of all the teeth and could not open his mouth up to 16.9.1993 and could take only special liquid diet in that period. Moreover, he advised him to consult Dr. Setia, as well as E. N. T. Consultant and Dental Consultant, back home in America, where he got treatment from Dr. Marty Schneider. He has also proved that vide Exh. PW 5/e, he charged a sum of Rs.10,000 as fees from this patient, whereas according to Vincent Dsouze, PW 7, of Dental institute, New Delhi, Dr. Arun Setia had treated this patient vide bills Exh. PW 7/1 to 3. (20) Thus, from the evidence analysed above coupled with document Exh. PX, it stands fully proved that the petitioner had spent a sum of Rs.2,16,730 on account of treatment in India and in america, due to the injuries/fractures caused in this accident and it is well settled that he is entitled for the reimbursement of the same and it is ordered accordingly. PX, it stands fully proved that the petitioner had spent a sum of Rs.2,16,730 on account of treatment in India and in america, due to the injuries/fractures caused in this accident and it is well settled that he is entitled for the reimbursement of the same and it is ordered accordingly. (21) From the aforesaid evidence, particularly the bills Exh. PW 6/1 to 13, it is also proved beyond doubt that the petitioner was made to spend a sum of rs.55,000 for his stay and special diet in India as he had to stay here for three months, for follow-up action and in the given circumstances it is ordered that he is entitled to claim even that amount as compensation. (22) From the statement of the petitioner, coupled with his affidavit Exh. PY, it is also proved that he earns 3,000 u. S. Dollars per month which means that he had suffered loss of earnings for three months for which he had to stay in a hotel and remained immobilised on account of injuries/fractures, caused in this vehicular road accident. In this manner, he is entitled to 9,000 U. S. Dollars (Rs.2,27,000) as compensation, for such loss of earnings. (23) The petitioner has further stated that he had to spend a sum of 1,200 U. S. Dollars for coming down to India for his statement in his case and even his passport Exh. PA supports his claim in this regard. In these circumstances, it is ordered that he is also entitled to the reimbursement of this amount of rs.40,000 (1,200 U. S. Dollars) for such expenses. (24) As discussed above, from the deposition of Dr. C. S. Anand, PW 5, an ear and nose specialist of Delhi, who retired as Professor of E. N. T. Department, as well as the Dean of Medical college, Gwalior, due to the injuries/ fractures in question, two of the teeth of the petitioner had to be removed. In addition to that he has suffered permanent toss of the ear, as well as of speech defect, on account of fracture of jaw and in the given circumstances, it will be just and proper to award him compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000 on that account. " 5. In addition to that he has suffered permanent toss of the ear, as well as of speech defect, on account of fracture of jaw and in the given circumstances, it will be just and proper to award him compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000 on that account. " 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, during the course of submissions, has taken a preliminary objection that the insurance company appellant cannot agitate or address any argument with regard to the finding of the Tribunal over the grant of compensation. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon sec. 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, against this, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation is to be given by the insurance company and the insurance company under the provisions of the policy, can take all the pleas which are available to the person insured. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal committed patent illegality in awarding the amount of rs.8,34,730 as prima facie there is no proof about the income of the respondent. The counsel also submitted that even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that the insurance company cannot agitate or address any argument with regard to the finding of the Tribunal over the grant of compensation in view of sec. 149 (2)of the Act, still the High Court has the vast powers to treat this appeal as a revision and if the order of the Tribunal is against the law the High Court is competent to interfere. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that in the absence of the proof regarding the income of the respondent, the awarded amount cannot be sustained. 6. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and I have also gone through the reasons advanced by the Tribunal. These reasons cannot be held to be totally erroneous. Of course, there is exaggeration on the part of the respondent with regard to his income. From the discussion made by the Tribunal, it is clear that the respondent suffered disability of the ear ranging from 30 per cent to 40 per cent and of the speech 25 per cent to 35 per cent DB. Apart from that the jaws of the respondent were affected. From the discussion made by the Tribunal, it is clear that the respondent suffered disability of the ear ranging from 30 per cent to 40 per cent and of the speech 25 per cent to 35 per cent DB. Apart from that the jaws of the respondent were affected. The respondent must have suffered a considerable pain on account of the disability suffered by him. He must have remained out of job for sufficient time. 7. Thus, I am of the opinion that the just compensation under all categories can be clubbed. The respondent should be paid rs.7,34,730 in all by way of compensation under the various heads. Thus, I modify the award of the learned Tribunal and grant a sum of Rs.7,34,730 with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till payment. The insurance company appellant shall deposit the amount payable to the respondent No.1, in the executing court, within one month from today. The said amount shall only be paid to the respondent, Gary Michael powell. The amount which has already been deposited by the insurance company shall be credited. 8. With this modification in the impugned order dated 30.1.1996, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, panipat, the appeal stands disposed of, 9. The counsel for the respondent No.1 is permitted to file the execution application on behalf of his client provided the counsel has valid power of attorney in his favour. Appeal partly allowed.