Judgment :- The appellants, who are the owner of the tractor involved in the accident and the insurance company, with whom the vehicle has been insured, challenge the correctness of the judgment dated 6. 1997 made in M.C.O.P.No.418 of 1995 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Cuddalore, whereby, the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees One lakh twenty five Thousand only) with interest at 12% p.a., for the injuries sustained by the respondent herein, in a motor accident said to have taken place on 19. 1994 at 8.00 p.m., near Manjakuppam in Pondy Road at Cuddalore. 2. According to the respondent, who was examined as P.W.1, on 19. 1994 at about 8.00 p.m., when he was travelling in his TVS-Suzuki bearing Registration No.TN-31-Z-1801, the tractor cum trailor bearing Registration No.TCF-365 and TCF-130, belonging to the first appellant, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him, which resulted in his sustaining injuries. 3. A claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.418 of 1995 was filed by the respondent/claimant, claiming a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him and the appellants, though did not dispute the accident, resisted on the ground that the accident took place only when the respondent, who drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed it against a van, as a result of which, he sustained injuries and that it was not due to dashing of the tractor and hence, the claim petition has to be dismissed. 4. The tribunal, after framing the issues, decided the claim petition in favour of the claimants in terms of the impugned judgment. The tribunal held that the accident in question had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver and as a result of the same, the respondent sustained injuries. The tribunal also, based on the available materials, found that the respondent suffered total disability of 45% in his right leg and right hand, and hence, considering the nature of the job, viz., medical representative, held that the respondent would have suffered loss of earning capacity and hence, entitled for compensation in respect of his injuries, disability, pain and suffering, mental agony and loss of earning capacity, and accordingly, determined a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- and awarded the same. 5. 5. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal erred in accepting the total disability of 45% (25% in the right hand and 20% in the right leg) as assessed by the doctor, P.W.2, inasmuch as the said injuries are only simple in nature, even as per Ex.P.3, accident register copy and hence, the award is liable to be set aside on that ground. 6. A perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal discloses that it has applied its mind while awarding the amount with reference to the nature of the injuries. On a perusal of the evidence of P.W.2, the doctor, it is seen that the doctor has found the knee in the right leg swollen and while bending the leg, the injured complained of pain and that 10 degree of the leg was not found functioning and as a result, the injured could easily find it difficult to bend his knee and sit. The doctor, P.W.2, also stated in his evidence that the thumb in the right hand was found painful and there was loss of tissues, as a result of which, the injured could not be able to lift heavy articles. The doctor also found, on the basis of the x-rays taken, that the injured suffered a fracture in his right knee. On the basis of the injuries suffered by the injured and in view of the nature of work of the injured as a medical representative, the doctor assessed the disability of 25% on the right hand and 20% on the right leg and totally assessed 45% disability and issued Ex.P.6, certificate. The x-rays taken by the respondent/claimant were also marked as Ex.P.7. 7. On going through the order of the Tribunal as well as the other available materials, I find that the Tribunal has very well considered the evidence of the doctor, P.W.2, as also the other material evidence adduced by the respondent/claimant and arrived at a finding that the claimant has suffered injuries, as assessed by the doctor, P.W.2, and accordingly, awarded the amount. I, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. No costs.