Judgment :- This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 22. 2001 made in MACTOP.No.459 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court), Chidambaram, awarding a sum of Rs.5,77,000/-, for the injuries sustained by the respondent. 2. On 8. 1999, at about 2.00 p.m., while the respondent/claimant was returning back after selling vegetables in Siluvaipuram Bus Stand for a bus, the two wheeler belonging to the first appellant dashed against her causing serious injuries. With regard to the manner of accident and the fixing of liability upon the first respondent and the insurance company, there is no debate. There is no infirmity with regard to the findings of the tribunal and the factors regarding the accident. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants very much assails the quantum of compensation arrived at by the tribunal by vehemently arguing that it is excessive and it does not conform to the settled legal principles. Ex.P3 is the Wound Certificate issued to the respondent, which shows that she was in-patient from 8. 1999 to 22. 2000 in the Government Hospital. The observations contained in the above said Certificate and the injuries reads as follows:- "1. Tenderness in Dorsal spine-Burst D11 with palparms. X-ray dorsal spine AP Lat. 2. Tender Pelure susperior and inferior and left side. 3. Contusion left eye. 4. Cervical spin tenderness – Loss of cervical AP Lat. X-ray curvical" Ex.P5 is the Sonogram Report. Before the Tribunal, the respondent has deposed that she sustained fractures in her pelvis, spinal card injuries on her head and bleeding occurred in her ear, nose and she felt impairment in vision in her right eye and numbness in both the legs, afterwards, without control she had to pass urine and motion. She was admitted to the Annamalai University Medial College Hospital. 4. The Doctor/P.W.2 examined the respondent and issued the Disability Certificate stating that she is suffering from permanent disability to the tune of 90% and further adding that she could not move her both legs, that she is unable to sit, walk or stand on her own accord, that she is passing urine without any control, that on a perusal of x-ray, she was able to find mal-union in cervical bone No.11, which is found with pus. The Doctor further opined that due to the injuries she could not walk in her future since her entire nervous system has been affected, for such reason, passing of urine is uncontrollable, which will lead to contamination and that she has to undergo proper treatment and to take proper nourishment. 5. Considering the circumstances, the tribunal has fixed the permanent disability at 70% even though Ex.P12 disability certificate goes to the effect that it is 90%. The claimant was a vegetable vendor and was earning about Rs.4000/- per month, towards loss of income, the tribunal has fixed Rs.2 lakhs and considering the medical expenses, she is entitled to Rs.1 lakh even though no medical bills have been produced, considering the long treatment, she has taken. The tribunal has also awarded Rs.50,000/- on the strength of Ex.P11; for transport expenses Rs.2,000/- has been awarded; for extra nourishment, the tribunal has allowed Rs.5000/-. Since she had been under medical treatment for a long time on account of personal assistance, a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded and for future personal assistance, Rs.30,000/- has been allowed. The tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs.1,50,000/- for permanent disability. However, permanent disability and future loss of income should have been calculated under one head. Any way for both aspects, Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- have been awarded and in total, it may be taken as Rs.3,50,000/-to be awarded under the said head. Considering the manner of accident, towards pain and sufferings, medical treatment, which the claimant has undergone as well as her future sufferings and difficulties in her life, this Court finds no infirmity in the award passed by the tribunal. It is seen that the claimant could not walk in future and she has to be sedentary and she could not herself and maintain her family. 6. In these circumstances, I do not find any necessity to interfere with the observation and findings of the tribunal and the award deserves confirmation by this Court. 7. In fine, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs.