Judgment :- 1. Insurance company has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 13. 2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.34 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Attur, Salem District. 2. It is a case of injury. The accident in this case happened on 11. 2003. The injured claimant, aged 33 years, an agriculturist was riding a TVS 50 when he was hit by a Bajaj mini door van insured with the appellant insurance company and in that accident, he suffered fracture of left thigh. He was in hospital for some times. He claimed a sum of Rs.4,90,835/- as compensation. 3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. Dr. Sridharan, was examined as P.W.2. Documents Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. Ex.A1 is the copy of the F.I.R. Ex.A2 is the discharge summary. Exs.A3 to A5 are the medical bills. Ex. A.6 is the disability certificate assessing the disability at 40%. Ex.A7 is the x-ray. Ex.A8 is the copy of the copy of registration certificate of mini door van and driving licence. Ex.A9 is the wound certificate. No oral and documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant/ 2nd respondent before the Tribunal. 4. Considering the age, occupation, nature of the injuries and the period of hospitalisation, the Tribunal after fixing the income at Rs.4,000/-p.m. as against Rs.7,000/- claimed, granted the following amount as compensation with interest at 7.5% p.a. 5. In appeal, it is contended that the sum of Rs.65,000/- granted towards future loss of income is not justified and a sum of Rs.65,000/- granted towards pain and suffering is exorbitant. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be reduced. 6. Learned counsel for the claimant on the other hand pleaded that meager amount has been granted for loss of income during treatment and transport expenses and no amount has been granted for attender charges. 7. Based on the medical records and the evidence of the doctor, it is clear that the injured claimant has suffered fracture of right thigh which was healed after the period of hospitalisation and the medical management. There is no material to prove that there is a loss of earning capacity. The order of the Tribunal is vague and bereft of material. There is no material to prove that there is a loss of earning capacity. The order of the Tribunal is vague and bereft of material. Though the claimant is entitled to compensation for permanent disability and pain and suffering as he was in hospital for a period of 11 days, the sum of Rs.63,000/-granted towards pain and suffering is excessive and not commensurate with the nature of injury and the period of hospitalisation. As far as the plea of the counsel for the claimant is concerned, he is justified in pleading for appropriate compensation for loss of income during the period of treatment, transport expenses and also attender charges which was omitted by the Tribunal. Considering all these facts, the award stands modified as follows:- There is no dispute with regard to negligence, liability and the interest. 8. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed as follows:- (i)The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.1,51,000/- from Rs.2,40,000/-. (ii) The award amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. as ordered by the Tribunal. (iii) Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time to deposit the award amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount as per the order of this Court. .(iv) Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2007 is closed. .(v) There shall be no order as to costs.