Judgment :- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the Judgment and Decree made in MACT.OP No.67 of 2003 dated 28.04.2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional Subordinate Judge, Full Addl. Charge) at Villupuram. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- The first respondent / claimant was injured in a motor accident on 19.05.2002 at 6.15 p.m. The claimant along with one Punniyamoorthy, who was a pillion rider, was driving TVS-50 bearing Registration No.TN-32-V-1839 belonging to one Sekar, the second respondent herein, near Narasinganoor at the extreme left side of the road in Villupuram-Gingee Road towards Villupuram. At that time, a van belonging to one Manivasagam, the fourth respondent herein, bearing Registration No.TN-39-P-5868, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the TVS-50. Due to the accident, the claimant as well as the pillion rider were thrown out and sustained grievous injuries on the head and all over the body. The pillion rider died on his way to the hospital. The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- before the Tribunal. The van was insured with the appellant / Insurance Company who resisted the claim. On the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- a) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the van driver or not? b) Whether the claimant is entitled for any compensation? If so, what is the amount and from whom? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the van driver and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the award, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and stated that it is excessive and exorbitant, without basis and justification, and that therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent / claimant submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence and came to the correct conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent / claimant submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence and came to the correct conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is the Doctor. Ex.P1 is the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the M.V.I. Report of the van. Ex.P3 is the wound certificate. Ex.P4 is the true copy of M.V.I. Report of TVS-50. Ex.P5 is the copy of judgment. Ex.P6 is the insurance policy. Ex.P7 is the driving licence of the van driver. Ex.P8 is the driving licence of the claimant. Ex.P9 is the permanent disability certificate. Ex.P10 is the x-ray. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the van driver and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:- Rupees Permanent disability 55,000/-Statutory award 25,000/-Grievous injuries 20,000/-Simple injuries 10,000/-Pain and suffering 30,000/-Mental agony 20,000/-Medical expenses 15,000/-Transport expenses 15,000/-Extra nourishment 10,000/- Total... 2,00,000/- ============== The only issue now to be considered is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive or not. Ex.P3 is the wound certificate. As per the wound certificate the injuries sustained by the claimant are as under:- 1.Fracture in the right and left leg frontal and periotal bones. 2.Fracture of the right femur. 3.Two teeth broken in lower jaw. 4.Two teeth broken in upper jaw. 5.Sutured wound on left eye brow. 6.Abrasion on the left hand. 7.Multiple injuries all over the body. P.W.2, the Doctor has given the disability certificate which is Ex.P9. Ex.P10 is the x-ray. As per these exhibits, the claimant is suffering from 15% disability on his head and 40% disability on his hip, totalling to 55% disability. Relying on these evidence, the Tribunal has taken the disability at 55% and awarded a sum of Rs.55,000/- towards permanent disability. P.W.2, the Doctor has given the disability certificate which is Ex.P9. Ex.P10 is the x-ray. As per these exhibits, the claimant is suffering from 15% disability on his head and 40% disability on his hip, totalling to 55% disability. Relying on these evidence, the Tribunal has taken the disability at 55% and awarded a sum of Rs.55,000/- towards permanent disability. After taking into consideration the nature of the injuries, I feel that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards permanent disability at Rs.55,000/- is reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-towards statutory award, Rs.20,000/- towards grievous injuries and Rs.10,000/- towards simple injuries, which are not based on any material or evidence available on record. Hence the amounts awarded towards these heads are unwarranted and accordingly they are set aside. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-towards pain and suffering which is excessive. After taking into consideration the nature of injuries, I feel that it would be appropriate and reasonable to reduce the same to Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards mental agony, which is very excessive and hence it would be appropriate and reasonable to reduce the same to Rs.15,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards medical expenses. There is no documentary evidence produced to substantiate the claim. After taking into consideration the nature of injuries, I feel that certainly the claimant would have incurred medical expenses and hence it would be appropriate and reasonable to award Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses as against the sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards transport and Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment. I feel that it would be appropriate and reasonable to award Rs.5,000/-each towards transport and extra nourishment as against the sum of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/-awarded by the Tribunal, respectively. The details of the modified compensation are as under:- Rupees Permanent disability 55,000/-Pain and suffering 10,000/-Mental agony 15,000/-Medical expenses 10,000/-Transport expenses 5,000/-Extra nourishment 5,000/- Total... 1,00,000/- ============== Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-as against the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. 6. It is stated that 50% of the award amount has already been deposited. 1,00,000/- ============== Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-as against the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. 6. It is stated that 50% of the award amount has already been deposited. The claimant is permitted to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount if any, already withdrawn. The Insurance Company is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount, if any available, on making proper application. 7. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above modification. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 of 2006 and 1 of 2007 are closed. No costs.