Judgment : S. TAMILVANAN, J. 1. Aggrieved by the common judgment and decree, dated 24.3.2005 passed in M.C.O.P. Nos. 701 of 2004, 630 of 2004, 700 of 2004 and 702 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub-Court, Tiruvallur, these civil miscellaneous appeals have been preferred. 2. The appellant, United India Insurance Company Limited, second respondent before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has preferred these appeals challenging the liability to pay compensation to the victims as well as the quantum of compensation. 3. It is not in dispute that on 19.2.2004, the first respondent/claimant in the respective M.C.O.Ps have sustained bodily injuries, fractures and consequently permanent disability, for which they filed separate applications under the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, seeking compensation. 4. C.M.A. No. 925 of 2007 relates to M.C.O.P. No. 701 of 2004 filed by claimant Sulochana, aged about 45 years. She had sustained injuries, fracture in spine of right capula, both hands and legs and the doctor assessed her permanent disability at 55%. The said claimant was examined as P.W.3 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,86,500/-to be paid with 9% interest and proportionate costs. 5. C.M.A. No. 979 of 2007 relates to M.C.O.P. No. 630 of 2004, filed by claimant Rosammal, aged about 45 years, who is said to have sustained head injuries, fracture in spine of right scapula, both hands and legs. As per the evidence of the doctor available on record, she sustained 65% permanent disability, for which, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-to be paid with 9% interest and proportionate costs. 6. C.M.A. No. 980 of 2007 relates to M.C.O.P. No. 700 of 2004, which was filed by claimant M. Dhavamani, aged about 33 years. As per the evidence of the doctor, permanent disability sustained by her was assessed at 75%, for which, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 5,79,500/- to be paid with 9% interest and costs. 7. C.M.A. No. 981 of 2007 relates to M.C.O.P. No. 702 of 2004, which was filed by claimant, Rajini, aged about 26 years. As per the evidence of the doctor, the said claimant sustained 65% permanent disability. For the said claimant, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,98,500/- to be paid with 9% interests and costs. 8. 7. C.M.A. No. 981 of 2007 relates to M.C.O.P. No. 702 of 2004, which was filed by claimant, Rajini, aged about 26 years. As per the evidence of the doctor, the said claimant sustained 65% permanent disability. For the said claimant, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,98,500/- to be paid with 9% interests and costs. 8. The second respondent/owner of the lorry in all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals was set ex parte, since he failed to appear before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, after service of notice. The appellant herein, as second respondent has denied the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, by its driver and that he had valid license to drive the vehicle and also sought permission to file petition under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant has stated that the first respondent/claimant in all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were gratuitous passengers and as per the Apex Court rulings, such persons are not entitled to any compensation from the Insurance Company, under the Motor Vehicles Act. 9. Mr. S. Udhayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that on the date of the accident, as per the evidence and the findings of the Court below, the claimants in all the M.C.O.Ps relating to the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals had travelled only as gratuitous passengers, accompanying their agricultural produces in the lorry bearing Registration No. TN.20 B 5839 at 7 pm from Kaveripakkam to Kumararajapettai Drow-pathiamman Temple and due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver, the motor accident occurred and the claimants herein suffered various multiple injuries and fractures and subsequently, sustained permanent disabilities. 10. In support of their contentions, the claimants were examined as P.Ws.1 to 4 and the doctor, who medically inspected and gave disability certificates was examined as P.W.5. On the date of the accident itself, a case was registered against the driver of the vehicle and the copy of the FIR was marked as Exhibit P-2. Exhibit P-2, dated 16.11.2004 is the copy of the final report (charge sheet) filed against the driver of the vehicle. Exhibit P-28, dated 29.11.2004 is the copy of the impugned judgment passed inSTC No. 3517 of 2004 against the driver of the vehicle. Exhibit P-2, dated 16.11.2004 is the copy of the final report (charge sheet) filed against the driver of the vehicle. Exhibit P-28, dated 29.11.2004 is the copy of the impugned judgment passed inSTC No. 3517 of 2004 against the driver of the vehicle. As per the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has found that the driver of the vehicle voluntarily had pleaded guilty and he paid the fine amount imposed by the criminal Court and therefore, the alleged negligence against the driver of the vehicle has been proved. 11. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, even if the alleged rash and negligent driving of the vehicle is proved, the appellant being the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants, since it is a goods carriage, solely for carrying goods and that there is no coverage of policy. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following decisions : 1. New India Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Asha Rani New India Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Asha Rani New India Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Asha Rani , AIR 2003 SC 607 : (2003) 2 SCC 223 2. National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Ajit Kumar and Others National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Ajit Kumar and Others National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Ajit Kumar and Others 2004-1-LW-90 3. National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Chinnamma and Others National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Chinnamma and Others National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Chinnamma and Others 2005-1-LW-92 4. National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and Others National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and Others National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and Others , 2005-1-LW-105 5. National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Bommithi Suhhayamma and Others National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Bommithi Suhhayamma and Others National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Bommithi Suhhayamma and Others 2005-2-LW-163 6. National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma (2008) 1 SCC 423 : (2008) 1 MLJ 66 7. Thockhom Ongbi Sangeeta @ Sangi Devi and Another v. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., and Others Thockhom Ongbi Sangeeta @ Sangi Devi and Another v. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., and Others Thockhom Ongbi Sangeeta @ Sangi Devi and Another v. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., and Others , 2008-2-LW-15 12. Thockhom Ongbi Sangeeta @ Sangi Devi and Another v. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., and Others Thockhom Ongbi Sangeeta @ Sangi Devi and Another v. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., and Others Thockhom Ongbi Sangeeta @ Sangi Devi and Another v. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., and Others , 2008-2-LW-15 12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent relied on the following decisions: 1. United India Insurance Co., Ltd. v. P. Jaya United India Insurance Co., Ltd. v. P. Jaya United India Insurance Co., Ltd. v. P. Jaya 2006 (1) CTC 173 2. United India Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Tilak Singh United India Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Tilak Singh United India Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Tilak Singh AIR 2006 SC 1576 : (2006) 4 SCC 404 : (2006) 2 MLJ 422 3. New India Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Vedwati New India Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Vedwati New India Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Vedwati (2007) 3 MLJ 117 (SC) 4. National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. K. Elammal and Others National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. K. Elammal and Others National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. K. Elammal and Others 2007 (1) TN MAC 433 5. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Dhanabackiam (2007) 1 MLJ 65 6. P. Annamma v. N. N. A. Patrick P. Annamma v. N. N. A. Patrick P. Annamma v. N. N. A. Patrick , II (2007) ACC 295. 13. The Hon‘ble Apex Court in Thockhom Ongbi Sangeeta @ Sangi Devi and Another v. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., and Others Thockhom Ongbi Sangeeta @ Sangi Devi and Another v. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., and Others Thockhom Ongbi Sangeeta @ Sangi Devi and Another v. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., and Others ( supra) , has held as follows: “The position becomes further clear because the expression used is “goods carriage” is solely for the “carriage of goods.” Carrying of passengers in a goods carriage is not contemplated in the Act. There is no provision similar to clause (ii) of the proviso appended to Section 95 of the Old Act prescribing requirement of insurance policy. Even Section 147 of the Act mandates compulsory coverage against death of or bodily injury to any passenger of “public service vehicle.” The proviso makes it further clear that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in goods vehicle would be limited to liability under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. Even Section 147 of the Act mandates compulsory coverage against death of or bodily injury to any passenger of “public service vehicle.” The proviso makes it further clear that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in goods vehicle would be limited to liability under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. There is no reference to any passenger in “goods carriage.” 14. In the Full Bench Decision of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Chinnamma and Others National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Chinnamma and Others National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Chinnamma and Others ( supra) , it has been held that an insurance coverage for an owner of the goods or his authorised representative travelling in a vehicle became compulsory only with effect from 14.11.1994, i. e., from the date of coming into force of the Amending Act 54 of 1994, wherein the Hon‘ble Apex Court has held that the deceased was a businessman used to deal in vegetables. After he purchased the vegetables, he was to transport the same to market for the purpose of sale thereof and not for any agricultural purpose. However, even if it be presumed that the trailer would answer the description of the “goods carriage” as contained in Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the case would be covered by the decision of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Asha Rani New India Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Asha Rani New India Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Asha Rani ( supra), and the other decisions following the same, since the accident had taken place on 24.11.1991. 15. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Asha Rani New India Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Asha Rani New India Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Asha Rani ( supra) , has held as follows : “It is held that the insurer will not be liable for paying compensation to the owner of the goods or his authorised representative on being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle meets with an accident and the owner of the goods or his representative dies or suffers any bodily injury.” It is clear that the decision rendered in New India Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh , AIR 2000 SC 235 : (2000) 1 SCC 237 : (2000) 1 MLJ 115 has been overruled by the Full Bench of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. 16. In the decision, National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Ajit Kumar and Others National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Ajit Kumar and Others National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Ajit Kumar and Others ( supra), the Hon‘ble Apex Court has categorized the Motor Accident Claims Cases, relating to passengers travelling in goods vehicle, 1) those covered by the old Act; 2) those covered by the Act; and 3) those covered by amendment of the Act in 1994 by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994. In New India Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh (supra), it was held that proceeding on the footing that provision of Section 95(1) of the Old Act as in pari materia with Section 147(1) of the Act, as it stood prior to the amendment in 1994 and held that difference in the language of “goods vehicle” as appearing in the Old Act and “goods carriage” in the Act is of significance. A bare reading of the provisions makes it clear that the legislative intent was to prohibit goods vehicle from carrying any passenger. This is clear from the expression “in addition to passengers” as contained in definition of “goods vehicle” in the old Act. There is no reference to any passenger in the goods carriage. Relying on the Full Bench Decision and New India Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Asha Rani New India Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Asha Rani New India Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Asha Rani ( supra) it has been held that the provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability therefor. 17. 17. However, in the decision, National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and Others National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and Others National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and Others ( supra), the Hon‘ble Apex Court has held that whether the owner ought to have obtained permit to ply a vehicle in terms of policy of insurance, though the insurer had no liability, considering the beneficial object of the Act, the Hon‘ble Apex Court held that it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability, for the purpose of recovering the amount paid for the owner, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit, it may initiate a proceeding before the concerned Executing Court, as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. The Executing Court, accordingly, shall pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as to the manner in which the owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default, it shall be open to the Executing Court to direct realisation by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, i. e., the insured. 18. A Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Dhanabackiam (supra), has held that under Section 147(1) of Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation for the death of unauthorised person travelling in the goods vehicle, however, in order to facilitate the payment to the claimants, the Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation and recover the same from the owner of vehicle by directly initiating execution proceedings. 19. In National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. K. EIammal and Others National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. K. EIammal and Others National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. K. EIammal and Others ( supra), also this Court has taken a view that the insurer is liable to pay compensation first to the claimants as awarded and thereafter to recover the same from the owner, by way of Execution Proceedings without filing any separate suit therefor. 20. 20. A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co., Ltd. v. P. Jaya United India Insurance Co., Ltd. v. P. Jaya United India Insurance Co., Ltd. v. P. Jaya (supra), wherein it has been held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants as awarded by the Tribunal and can recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, by way of initiating Execution Proceedings, without filing any separate suit. 21. In United India Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Tilak Singh United India Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Tilak Singh United India Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Tilak Singh (supra), the Hon‘ble Apex Court has held that the liability of the insurer did not cease, as far as a third party is concerned, if insurer was not intimated of transfer of vehicle under Section 157 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and as per Section 103(A) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. I am of the view that the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 22. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, I am of the view that the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants/victims in the motor accident, since it is a beneficial legislation and recover the same from the insured, owner of the vehicle, namely, the second respondent in all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, by way of Execution Proceedings, without filing any separate suit. 23. Now this Court has to consider the quantum of compensation. For the first respondent/claimant, Sulochana in C.M.A. No. 925 of 2007, relating to M.C.O.P. No. 701 of 2004, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,86,500/-. For 55% permanent disability, as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the compensation awarded is on the higher side. For permanent disability of 55%, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 55,000/-, apart from Rs. 2,50,000/- for loss of earning power. It is well settled that the Tribunal cannot award compensation on both the heads. From the evidence of P.W.5, Doctor and the Disability Certificate of Sulochana, Exhibit P-25. The document Exhibit P-20 is her medical bills, the claimant has established that she had sustained fracture in her hip bone and also head injury and she had taken treatment in Pallipat Government Hospital and then at Kancheepuram Meenakshi Medicals, a private clinic. From the evidence of P.W.5, Doctor and the Disability Certificate of Sulochana, Exhibit P-25. The document Exhibit P-20 is her medical bills, the claimant has established that she had sustained fracture in her hip bone and also head injury and she had taken treatment in Pallipat Government Hospital and then at Kancheepuram Meenakshi Medicals, a private clinic. As per the findings of the Tribunal, she was aged about 45 years. Considering the permanent disability of 55%, I find it reasonable to award compensation, by fixing her monthly notional income at Rs. 3,000/- per month, as per Minimum Wages Act, since there is no documentary evidence to show her monthly income. As the permanent disability assessed by the Doctor was 55%, I find it reasonable to deduct 1/3rd, since she can have some other avocation and earn some minimum income. Considering the age of the claimant as 45 years, by applying multiplier 13, after deducting 1/3rd in the notional monthly income of Rs. 3,000/-, the loss of earning power could be arrived at 3000 × 12 × 2/3 × 55/100 × 13, which comes to Rs. 1,71,600/-. The Tribunal has decided the amount on the higher side by providing Rs. 55,000/- for 55% permanent disability, apart from 2,50,000/- for loss of earning power. I am of the view instead of the aforesaid amount, awarding Rs. 1,71,600/- on the aforesaid calculation would meet the ends of justice. For pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000/-, which is also on the higher side. I find it reasonable to award Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering. For six months loss income during the period of treatment, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 18,000/- as compensation. As there is no direct evidence, except the oral testimony of the claimant, considering the nature of injury and the treatment, I find it reasonable to award compensation only for three months towards loss of income during the period of treatment, which comes to Rs. 9,000/-. The compensation award on the other heads such as on the basis of Exhibit P-20, Rs. 3,500/-, for transportation expenses, Rs. 5,000/- and for Nutritious Foods, Rs. 5,000/- has to be confirmed. Accordingly, the first respondent/claimant in C.M.A. No. 925 of 2007, Sulochana is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 2,14,100/- with 7.5% interest and costs from the date of filing of the petition, instead of Rs. 3,500/-, for transportation expenses, Rs. 5,000/- and for Nutritious Foods, Rs. 5,000/- has to be confirmed. Accordingly, the first respondent/claimant in C.M.A. No. 925 of 2007, Sulochana is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 2,14,100/- with 7.5% interest and costs from the date of filing of the petition, instead of Rs. 3,86,500/- with 9% interest, awarded by the Tribunal. 24. The first respondent/claimant in C.M.A. No. 979 of 2007, Rosammal is the claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 630 of 2004. She has been examined as P.W.1. As per her evidence, she was aged about 45 years. She got head injuries and also injury in her back bone, as per Exhibit P-2 and after the motor accident, she was admitted in the Government Hospital, Chennai and then Ramachandra Medical College Hospital, Chennai, for which she has spent Rs. 10,663/- as per Exhibits P-3 and P-5. The Doctor, P.W.5, after medically examining the claimant, has assessed 65% permanent disability and the disability certificate issued by him is marked as Exhibit P-23. I am of the view that the aforesaid claimant has sustained permanent disability of 65%. However, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 65,000/-towards the permanent disability of 65% and Rs. 75,000/-towards loss of earning power for the same. Awarding in both the heads for permanent disability is not sustainable in law. Considering the facts and circumstances, I find it reasonable that the first respondent/claimant is entitled to get only Rs. 75,000/- towards 65% permanent disability sustained by her. For the pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 30,000/-, which is also on the higher side. To meet the ends of justice, I find it reasonable to award Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering. Based on the medical bills, she is entitled to get Rs. 11,000/- towards medical expenses. From the available evidence, the first respondent/claimant is entitled to claim compensation for loss of earning for 3 months at Rs. 3,000/- per month, accordingly, she is entitled to get Rs. 9,000/-. Further, she is also entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- towards transportation expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards Nutritious Food. Accordingly, the first respondent/claimant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/-with 7.5% interest and costs from the date of filing of the petition, instead of Rs. 2,00,000/- with 9% interest awarded by the Tribunal. 25. 9,000/-. Further, she is also entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- towards transportation expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards Nutritious Food. Accordingly, the first respondent/claimant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/-with 7.5% interest and costs from the date of filing of the petition, instead of Rs. 2,00,000/- with 9% interest awarded by the Tribunal. 25. The first respondent/claimant in C.M.A. No. 980 of 2007, Dhavamani, who was the petition in M.C.O.P. No. 700 of 2004 was aged about 33 years and as per the evidence, he had sustained head injuries and also fracture on her right shoulder and right hip bone. She was admitted and given treatment at Pallipat Hospital, then got treatment in Sri Ramachandra Medical College Hospital, Chennai. As per the evidence, she had also got treatment in Government Eye Hospital, Egmore,Chennai. For the head injury, CT Scan was also taken. The medical bills, relating to Sankara Eye Hospital and the other hospital would show that she incurred a sum of Rs. 8,500/-towards medical expenses, for which, she had produced Exhibit P.12, medical bills, apart from Exhibits P.10 and P. 11, documents relating to Sankara Eye Hospital and Government Hospital, Chenai. As per the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.5 and the Disability Certificate, issued by him, which was marked as Exhibit P-24, the claimant sustained 75% permanent disability, for which the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 75,000/- and further Rs. 3,50,000/- towards loss of earning power. It is a settled proposition of law that the Tribunal cannot award compensation under two heads for the same cause of permanent disability. Hence, I hold that the award of compensation, Rs. 75,000/- is not sustainable. Even for 75% permanent disability, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,58,000/- on the higher side, as contended by the appellant. In the absence of document showing the income of the injured, considering the Minimum Wages Act, her income should be decided only at Rs. 3,000/- per month. Considering that her avocation has not totally deprived of, but has minimized, I find it reasonable to deduct 1/3rd from her income and considering the age, applying multiplier 17 and accordingly, compensation towards loss of earning power is computed at Rs. 3000 × 12 × 2/3 × 75/100 × 17, which comes to Rs. 3,06,000/-. For pain and suffering the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- which is on the higher side and hence, the same is modified at Rs. 3000 × 12 × 2/3 × 75/100 × 17, which comes to Rs. 3,06,000/-. For pain and suffering the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- which is on the higher side and hence, the same is modified at Rs. 20,000/-. For medical expenses, Rs. 8,500/-, for loss of income during the period of treatment, a sum of Rs. 9,000/- has to be awarded. For Transportation expenses, Rs. 5,000/- and for Nutritious Foods, Rs. 5,000/- has to be awarded. Accordingly, the first respondent/claimant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs. 3,53,500/- with 7.5% interest and costs from the date of filing of the petition, instead of Rs. 5,79,500/- to be paid with 9% interest, as awarded by the Tribunal. 26. The first respondent/claimant in C.M.A. No. 981 of 2007, Rajini is the petitioner in M.C.O.P. No. 702 of 2004. He was aged about 23 years on the date of accident. According to him, he was earning Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month by milk vending business, for which there is no direct evidence. In such circumstances, as per Minimum Wages Act, it would be proper to consider his income at Rs. 3,000/- per month, out of which, 1/3rd has to be deducted, since his total earning capacity has not been deprived of and he could earn a minimum amount, in spite of his 65% permanent disability. As per the evidence of P.W.5, Doctor, the said claimant sustained fracture on both the legs and other disablements. The Doctor has assessed his permanent disability at 65%. Immediately, after the accident, he was admitted in the Pallipat Hospital and then Government General Hospital, Chennai and then in C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore. For the aforesaid 65% permanent disability, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 65,000/-, apart from Rs. 2,00,000/- for loss of earning power. On both the heads, the Tribunal cannot award compensation for the very same cause and therefore, I hold that the claimant is not entitled to get separately, Rs. 65,000/- as compensation for the 65% disability. In the absence of any other evidence to show his monthly income, I find it reasonable to hold his monthly income at Rs. 3,000/- under Minimum Wages Act. As his total avocation has not been deprived of and he could do some other work and earn some minimum income, in spite of his 65% permanent disability, I find it reasonable to deduct l/3rd of the aforesaid income. 3,000/- under Minimum Wages Act. As his total avocation has not been deprived of and he could do some other work and earn some minimum income, in spite of his 65% permanent disability, I find it reasonable to deduct l/3rd of the aforesaid income. Accordingly, considering his age of 26 years, applying multiplier 18, the loss of earning power would be computed by Rs. 3000 × 12 × 2/3 × 65/100 × 18, which comes to Rs. 2,80,800/-. Since the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 2,00,000/- towards his loss of earning power, I find it reasonable to confirm the said amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards his loss of earning power. For pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000/-, which is on the higher side. Considering the facts and circumstances, I find it reasonable to award Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering and for three months loss of earning power during the period of treatment at the rate of Rs. 3,000/-, a sum of Rs. 9,000/- has to be awarded and for transportation expenses, Rs. 5,000/- and towards Nutritious Foods, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has to be awarded. For medical expenses, as sum of Rs. 3,500/- has to be awarded, as per the bills produced. Accordingly, the first respondent/claimant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs. 2,42,500/- with 7.5% interest and costs from the date of filing of the petition, instead of Rs. 3,98,500/- with 9% interest, as decided by the Tribunal. 27. In the light of the rulings of the Hon‘ble Apex Court and the decisions of this Court, I direct the appellant, United India Insurance Company to pay the compensation of Rs. 2,14,100/- with 7.5% interest and proportionate costs to the first respondent/claimant in C.M.A. No. 925 of 2007 and Rs. 1,25,000/- with 7.5% interest and proportionate costs to the first respondent/claimant in C.M.A. No. 979 of 2007 and Rs. 3,53,500/- with 7.5% interest and proportionate costs to the first respondent/claimant in C.M.A. No. 980 of 2007 and Rs. 2,42,500/- with 7.5% interest and proportionate costs to the first respondent/claimant in C.M.A. No. 981 of 2007 and recover the same from the insured, second respondent, being the owner of the vehicle in all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, by way of filing Execution Proceedings, without filing separate suits, in the light of the rulings of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. 28. 2,42,500/- with 7.5% interest and proportionate costs to the first respondent/claimant in C.M.A. No. 981 of 2007 and recover the same from the insured, second respondent, being the owner of the vehicle in all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, by way of filing Execution Proceedings, without filing separate suits, in the light of the rulings of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. 28. With the above directions, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.