JUDGMENT : C.S. Karnan, J. Appellant-Respondent No. 2 has filed the C.M.A. No. 718 of 2005 against the decree and judgment passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. 2 at Cuddalore) in M.C.O.P. No. 225 of 2004 dated 12.10.2004 awarding a total compensation of Rs. 7,88,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till date of payment of compensation. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows: The Petitioner, Kumanan, s/o Ramalingam, was travelling on Suzuki motor cycle bearing registration No. PY 01-L 2535 from Cuddalore to Periakanganankuppam on 5.6.2001. A Hero Honda motor cycle, bearing registration No. TN 49-A 9301, coming from Pondicherry to Cuddalore, owned by the Respondent No. 1, one Velmurugan and driven by him in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the Petitioner. In the result, the Petitioner sustained grievous injuries on his head, forehead and right leg and all over the body. Immediately, he was admitted in Sri Kannan Hospital, Cuddalore. Subsequently, for further treatment, the Petitioner was taken to Chennai and admitted in Malar Hospital, wherein major surgery was done. Thereafter, the Petitioner is undergoing treatment regularly. Due to this accident, his right eye vision has been lost and total vision power is impaired and as such, he has become permanently disabled. The Petitioner is a mechanical engineer and employed in Padhmam Herbal Care Pvt. Ltd., Pondicherry, as a Production Engineer. He was earning Rs. 7,500 per month. Due to this accident, he could not attend to his normal duties and his income has been depleted. He is able to survive and do normal activities only with the help of others. Hence, the Respondent No. 1 is liable to pay compensation. His vehicle was insured with the insurance company, Respondent No. 2 and so both the Respondents are liable to pay the compensation. In connection with this accident, Reddichavadi Police Station registered a criminal case in Crime No. 149 of 2001. 3. Petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs. 15,00,000 under the following heads: (1) Transport to hospital Rs. 5,000 (2) Extra nourishment Rs. 50,000 (3) Damage to clothing and articles Rs. 15,000 (4) Medical expenses including treatment Rs. 3,50,000 (5) Other expenses Rs. 30,000 (6) For pain and suffering Rs. 50,000 (7) Compensation for continuing disability Rs. 3. Petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs. 15,00,000 under the following heads: (1) Transport to hospital Rs. 5,000 (2) Extra nourishment Rs. 50,000 (3) Damage to clothing and articles Rs. 15,000 (4) Medical expenses including treatment Rs. 3,50,000 (5) Other expenses Rs. 30,000 (6) For pain and suffering Rs. 50,000 (7) Compensation for continuing disability Rs. 5,00,000 (8) Compensation for loss of earning power Rs. 5,00,000 4. Challenging the claim petition, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Respondent No. 2 has filed counter statement and resisted the claim of the Petitioner. In the counter statement, the Respondent No. 2 narrated that connected O.P. No. 202 of 2002 is also filed. The Respondent No. 2 has alleged that they are entitled to contest the case u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Respondent No. 2 denied that the vehicle involved in the accident bearing registration No. TN 49-A 9301 Hero Honda motor cycle is insured with them. The validity of registration certificate and driving licence are also denied. The Petitioner has to implead the owner and insurance company of TVS Suzuki motor cycle, registration No. PY 01-L 2535, which alone is the cause for the accident. The Respondent No. 2 denied the status of the Petitioner, his age and monthly income. The Petitioner's claim is imaginary and highly excessive. 5. In the said claim application, on the side of the claimant, three witnesses were examined, namely, the claimant herein PW 1, Dr. Chandiran PW 2 and Dr. Srikanth PW 3. Further, on the side of claim Petitioner, 26 documents were marked, Exh. PI to Exh. P26. On the side of the Respondents, no one was examined and no document was marked. 6. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, after considering the claim petition and counter statement of the Respondent No. 2 and evidence of the claimant and documents which were got marked on the Petitioner's side, had framed two issues namely: (1) On whose negligence the accident happened? (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 7. Before the Tribunal, at the time of adjudication, the Respondent No. 1 was called absent and set ex parte. (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 7. Before the Tribunal, at the time of adjudication, the Respondent No. 1 was called absent and set ex parte. The claimant was examined as PW 1 and he stated that on 5.6.2001 he was travelling on his motor cycle bearing registration No. PY 01-L 2535, nearing Periakanganankuppam, the Respondent No. 1's vehicle (bearing registration No. TN 49-A 9301) coming from Pondicherry to Cuddalore driven in a zigzag manner with high speed and negligent manner dashed against the claimant's vehicle. In the result, he sustained grievous injuries all over the body. This happened due to negligence of the Respondent No. 1. To prove the occurrence, the claimant marked the document Exh. P1, i.e., the first information report. The said first information report reveals that Respondent No. 1 had driven his vehicle bearing registration No. TN 49-A 9301 with rash and negligent manner and due to this, the accident had occurred. It was proved that the Respondent No. 1 had valid registration certificate for his vehicle through the document, i.e., Exh. P3. As such, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No. 1. On the side of the Respondent No. 2, no one was examined regarding the issue. As such, the allegation made in the counter statement by the Respondent No. 2 was not accepted. 8. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal then proceeded to determine the liability. The Respondent No. 1's motor cycle bearing registration No. TN 49-A 9301, has been insured with the insurance company, Respondent No. 2 and this policy was in force on the date of accident, i.e., 5.6.2001. As such, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 9. The claimant has deposed in his evidence about his injuries sustained in the said accident. In the said accident, he had sustained injuries on the head and this had resulted in loss of blood through head, ears and nose. Further he had suffered grievous injuries on his forehead, eyes, head, hands, legs and all over his body. 9. The claimant has deposed in his evidence about his injuries sustained in the said accident. In the said accident, he had sustained injuries on the head and this had resulted in loss of blood through head, ears and nose. Further he had suffered grievous injuries on his forehead, eyes, head, hands, legs and all over his body. Due to this the connecting nerves to eyes have been compressed and his eyes have become motionless and that subsequent to this he had been admitted in Kannan Hospital and because his condition worsened there, he was then admitted to Malar Hospital and remained there for 18 days as inpatient. Here, the Petitioner underwent surgery and surgery was done on his brain. Further the Petitioner underwent treatment at Arvind Eye Hospital, Madurai and Raghuram Eye Hospital, Chennai and Sankara Nethralaya Eye Hospital for setting right his vision. But due to the said accident the Petitioner has completely lost his right eye vision and his left eye vision has also been impaired. Further he has lost hearing in his right ear. His memory has also become impaired and the Petitioner is unable to do normal work also. The Petitioner was engaged to be married at the time of accident. Due to the accident, his marriage was stopped and he was further found to have become impotent and unfit for marriage. The Petitioner is a diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering and Computer Studies and was employed in Padhmam Herbal Care (P) Ltd. as Production Engineer getting a monthly salary of Rs. 7,500. Due to the accident he has not been able to do any work and thus, there has been loss of income. For his medical expenses, he has spent Rs. 3,00,000. Further he has asked for compensation of Rs. 15,00,000 towards pain and suffering, permanent disability, loss of income and medical expenses. Further, from the wound certificate issued by Kannan Hospital, Cuddalore, where he was admitted initially after the accident, it was found by the Tribunal that the age of the Petitioner was 31 as per Exh. P22. From the discharge summary given by Malar Hospital, Chennai Exh. P2, it was found that the age of the Petitioner was 31. Further, from the wound certificate issued by Kannan Hospital, Cuddalore, where he was admitted initially after the accident, it was found by the Tribunal that the age of the Petitioner was 31 as per Exh. P22. From the discharge summary given by Malar Hospital, Chennai Exh. P2, it was found that the age of the Petitioner was 31. As there were no other documents to prove the age of the Petitioner other than those mentioned above, the age of the Petitioner was taken as 31 by the Tribunal based on the above said two documents. Further, on perusal of the wound certificate issued by Kannan Hospital, i.e., Exh. P22, it was found that there were tear injuries on his head, right side of forehead and further bleeding through his left ear. For further treatment of the above injuries, it was found that the Petitioner was sent to Malar Hospital and further the injuries suffered were grievous in nature. Thus, Tribunal can find no reason to ignore the findings contained in document, Exh. P22. 10. Further, the Tribunal accepted that the Petitioner took treatment as inpatient in Malar Hospital, Chennai from 6.6.2001 to 23.6.2001 by verifying document Exh. P2. In Exh. P2 it has been certified that the Petitioner has right temporal and frontal brain contusion. Exh. P2 further reveals that there has been a bone fracture in the right side of head and this has affected the brain. Further, on going through Exh. P5 documents, it is found that the Petitioner has been subjected to various tests. Exh. P6 reveals the blood test reports. Exh. P7 reveals that the Petitioner has taken treatment for injuries in the eyes. Further, Exh. P8 shows that due to the injury in brain, the Petitioner has been affected in various ways. On inspection of Exh. P9, Exh. P10 and Exh. P11, it is seen that the Petitioner has received treatment in Raghuram Eye Hospital, Kumbakonam, Arvind Eye Hospital, Madurai and Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai. From Exh. P11, it is seen that the Petitioner's right eye has been affected. Considering that the Petitioner has suffered grievous injury on his head and consequent damage to his brain and nerves which had resulted in loss of eyesight in his right eye, the Tribunal feels that the permanent disability suffered by the Petitioner and consequent pain and suffering cannot be taken lightly. 11. Considering that the Petitioner has suffered grievous injury on his head and consequent damage to his brain and nerves which had resulted in loss of eyesight in his right eye, the Tribunal feels that the permanent disability suffered by the Petitioner and consequent pain and suffering cannot be taken lightly. 11. Regarding the injuries and treatment taken by the Petitioner, one Dr. Chandiran, PW 2, was examined. In his proof affidavit, the doctor has submitted that the Petitioner had come to him for assessment of the permanent disability suffered by him on 30.7.2004 and 4.8.2004. The doctor is a retired Senior Government Resident Doctor and presently working in Krishna Hospital, Cuddalore and Vallivilas Hospital. The doctor has examined the wound certificate given by the Kannan Hospital, Cuddalore, discharge summary of Malar Hospital, documents on medical treatment particulars. X-rays which were ordered to be taken by him and the report of the nerve specialist Dr. M. Velumani, dated 3.8.2004. It was found during examination that the Petitioner was restless and irritated and further he was not able to concentrate and that his memory was impaired. It was further found that there were two surgical marks on the right side of the face and back of the face and that his right eye vision was impaired badly and his left eye vision was also impaired and that he had loss of hearing on right ear. Further, he has stated that due to the accident he had been admitted in Malar Hospital from 6.6.2001 to 23.6.2001 and that surgery was done on the same day when he was admitted. During surgery, the blood clots in brain were removed and he was under artificial respiration through machine. Considering the above factors PW 2 has gauged the extent of permanent disability as 40 per cent and has given the disability certificate, Exh. P23. 12. Further, the medical report submitted by the ear, nose and throat specialist Dr. N. Ramakrishnan was marked as Exh. P20 and Dr. Velumani, nerve specialist report was marked as Exh. P21. The wound certificate issued by the Kannan Hospital, Cuddalore, was marked as Exh. P22. The four C.T. Scans were marked as Exh. P24 and two other C.T. Scans were marked as Exh. P25. On cross-examination of PW 2, the doctor has admitted that the extent of permanent disability fixed at 40 per cent is approximate. P21. The wound certificate issued by the Kannan Hospital, Cuddalore, was marked as Exh. P22. The four C.T. Scans were marked as Exh. P24 and two other C.T. Scans were marked as Exh. P25. On cross-examination of PW 2, the doctor has admitted that the extent of permanent disability fixed at 40 per cent is approximate. Hence, the Tribunal has taken the extent of permanent disability as 35 per cent. On this count, it awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000 to the Petitioner. 13. Further PW 3, Eye Specialist, Dr. Srikanth, on examination has stated in his proof affidavit that he had examined the Petitioner on 30.7.2004. On a thorough examination he had found that the claimant's right eye vision has been totally affected and his left eye vision is normal and hence he had fixed the permanent disability at 30 per cent. His certificate was marked as Exh. P26. From this, the Tribunal came to understand that due to the accident, the Petitioner's nerves had been affected and due to this the Petitioner has lost his right eye vision. But on cross-examination of the doctor, it was admitted by the doctor that the disability fixed by him was approximate. Hence, the Tribunal taking only 25 per cent disability, arrived at compensation for this to be Rs. 25,000. Accordingly, the Tribunal taking into account permanent disability on both counts fixed the compensation as Rs. 60,000. 14. Further, on consideration of Exh. P18 and Exh. P19, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the Petitioner is a qualified diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering and Computer Studies. From a scrutiny of Exh. P17, salary report, it was found that the Petitioner was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 7,500 at the time of accident and that he was employed as Production Engineer. From the fact that the Petitioner had sustained grievous permanent disability, it can be deduced that the Petitioner is not in a position to continue doing the same type of work which he was doing before the accident. Considering this, his loss of income per month was arrived at Rs. 2,000. Considering that the age of the Petitioner at the time of accident was 31 and taking into account the multiplier of 17 as per Section 163-A, the Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, the loss of income has been computed as Rs. Considering this, his loss of income per month was arrived at Rs. 2,000. Considering that the age of the Petitioner at the time of accident was 31 and taking into account the multiplier of 17 as per Section 163-A, the Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, the loss of income has been computed as Rs. 2,000 x 12 x 17 : Rs. 4,08,000. This was granted as compensation by the Tribunal under the head of loss of income. 15. From Exh. P12, which are medical bills, the amount in total in these bills come to Rs. 1,34,022.70. Considering that the Petitioner has had a brain surgery and had been hospitalised at Malar Hospital for continuous treatment and as there is no contrary evidence to negative this claim, the amount of Rs. 1,34,000 claimed by the Petitioner was granted by the Tribunal. Doctor's fee paid during the said hospitalisation has come to Rs. 54,300 as per document Exh. P13. The amount was also granted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also considered Exh. P14, medical bills, which amounted to Rs. 1,340.80. The Tribunal rounded this amount to Rs. 1,500 and granted the same. Hence, towards medical expenses, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 1,34,000 + Rs. 54,000 + Rs. 1,500 + Rs. 500 (as per Exh. P15) : Rs. 1,90,000. 16. Further, regarding travel expenses, the Petitioner had travelled to Chennai, Madurai and Kumbakonam in rented cars and has claimed an amount of Rs. 95,576 towards those expenses. Exh. P16 has been marked in support of these expenses incurred, which contains trip-sheets and bills for the said travel. However, as the persons who had given the bills were not examined, the Tribunal did not grant the full claim but awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000 only towards these expenses. Further, the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs. 5,000 for nutrition considering that the Petitioner had been hospitalised for a period of 18 days. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000 towards non-pecuniary damage for the loss of his right eyesight, nervous disorder, prospects of married life being reduced, shock due to accident, pain and mental suffering and the inconveniences caused to him. In total, the Tribunal granted a sum of (Rs. 60,000 + Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 1,90,000 + Rs. 50,000 + Rs. 5,000 + Rs. 75,000) : Rs. 75,000 towards non-pecuniary damage for the loss of his right eyesight, nervous disorder, prospects of married life being reduced, shock due to accident, pain and mental suffering and the inconveniences caused to him. In total, the Tribunal granted a sum of (Rs. 60,000 + Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 1,90,000 + Rs. 50,000 + Rs. 5,000 + Rs. 75,000) : Rs. 7,88,000 as total compensation to the Petitioner and directed the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to deposit the above sum within one month with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of petition till date of payment of compensation. It also directed them to pay the cost of the petition to the Petitioner. It further directed that the said amount should be deposited in a nationalised bank and interest from the deposit should be paid by the bank, where it is deposited, directly to the Petitioner once in three months. Lawyer's fee was decided as Rs. 14,880. 17. Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 7,88,000 is also on the higher side. Rs. 4,08,000 granted towards loss of earnings is an error. Further, the learned Tribunal had awarded compensation under the below mentioned heads, namely, towards transport charges Rs. 50,000; nourishment Rs. 5,000; non-pecuniary loss Rs. 75,000; for head injury Rs. 35,000 and loss of vision Rs. 25,000. Dr. Chandiran, PW 2, who is an Ortho doctor has neither performed any surgery nor given any treatment to the claimant for the head injury suffered by him. As such, PW 2, Dr. Chandiran's disability certificate should be rejected. PW 2, in his cross-examination has admitted that disability certificate showing 40 per cent disability was an approximate one. But, suo motu the learned Tribunal has reduced the percentage to 35 per cent without assigning any reason. PW 3, an eye doctor Srikanth also did not give any treatment to the injured-claimant. He has issued a disability certificate showing 30 per cent as disability and as such this should also be rejected. The learned Counsel for the Appellant further argued that PW 3, at the time of cross-examination had admitted that disability certificate issued by him was an approximate one and as such this certificate is also incorrect. Therefore, Rs. He has issued a disability certificate showing 30 per cent as disability and as such this should also be rejected. The learned Counsel for the Appellant further argued that PW 3, at the time of cross-examination had admitted that disability certificate issued by him was an approximate one and as such this certificate is also incorrect. Therefore, Rs. 60,000 which has been awarded under the head of disability, i.e., 35 per cent for head injuries, 25 per cent for eye injury has got to be rejected. Rs. 1,90,000 awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head of medical expenses in Malar Hospital, doctor fees and medical bills also has got to be set aside as the authors of the documents, who have given the bills have not been examined. The multiplier of 17 adopted by the Tribunal u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is also illegal. Further, learned Counsel for Appellant pointed out that the employer of the injured-claimant was not examined. The extra nourishment of Rs. 5,000 awarded was also erroneous. 18. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the injured is an engineer and has sustained grievous injuries all over the body especially head injuries, wherein the nerves in the brain have been affected and consequently the Petitioner has lost his right eye vision. The treatment received medical bills given in support thereof and the cause for accident have all been proved. The first information report has also shown that a case has been registered only against the Respondent No. 1, who is the rider of the vehicle. The claim has been awarded by the Tribunal on the basis of oral and documentary evidence after establishing the claim case regarding the age, income and nature of injuries. The Respondent's learned Counsel also pointed out that due to the said accident, the claimant has become physically unfit to lead a married life. Therefore, the award given by the Tribunal is correct. 19. For the foregoing reasons and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the court is of the view that an award of Rs. 7,88,000 granted by the Tribunal is justified for the following reasons: (1) For loss of earnings; Rs. 4,08,000 was granted as per Section 163-A of the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. For the foregoing reasons and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the court is of the view that an award of Rs. 7,88,000 granted by the Tribunal is justified for the following reasons: (1) For loss of earnings; Rs. 4,08,000 was granted as per Section 163-A of the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Considering the present physical condition of the claimant and taking into account his disability and age of the claimant as 31 years, the court views that the Petitioner will suffer loss of income. This has been taken as Rs. 2,000 per month by the learned Tribunal and this Court cannot find any fault in this. Hence, the award granted by the Tribunal is reasonable. (2) On the basis of documentary evidence, i.e., Exh. P12, the learned Tribunal has granted Rs. 1,34,000. This is also a bona fide claim and there is no need for the doctors who have issued the bills be examined, because the person who paid the bills was examined by the Tribunal and found to be correct. (3) As per Exh. P13, doctor's fee, Rs. 54,300 was paid by the claimant. This has also been proved, but the amount has been rounded off to Rs. 54,000 and the same was awarded by the Tribunal. This Court could not find any error in the said award. (4) For medical bills, as per Exh. P14, the Tribunal had granted Rs. 1,500 which is also reasonable. (5) As per Exh. P15, Rs. 500 was paid to Sankar Nethralaya, by the claimant and this has been verified and accordingly, the Tribunal had granted the same. As such, this Court finds no error in this. (6) The claimant has produced Exh. P16, regarding transport expenses incurred for his treatment and on this head he has claimed Rs. 95,576, but the Tribunal has reduced the same and granted Rs. 50,000 only. This is also a reasonable one and as such, this award cannot be faulted. (7) The claimant underwent treatment from 6.6.2001 to 23.6.2001 as inpatient in Malar Hospital and has claimed Rs. 5,000 for nutrition. 95,576, but the Tribunal has reduced the same and granted Rs. 50,000 only. This is also a reasonable one and as such, this award cannot be faulted. (7) The claimant underwent treatment from 6.6.2001 to 23.6.2001 as inpatient in Malar Hospital and has claimed Rs. 5,000 for nutrition. Though, this Court admits the contention of the Appellant that nutritional food was given by the hospital and thus, it has been charged already under hospital expenses, the claimant is also entitled to take nutritious food from outside sources as well and as such this award claimed is also fair. (8) Towards non-pecuniary damages, Rs. 75,000 was awarded for inconveniences, shock, physical defects which is a minus for marriage prospects and hence, this Court feels that the award granted is reasonable. 20. In total, a sum of Rs. 7,88,000 was granted by Claims Tribunal together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment which this Court considers fair and correct. 21. The above said appeal came before this Court on 10.8.2005, when the Appellant's counsel submitted to this Court that the entire balance compensation amount including interest and cost has been deposited into the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 225 of 2004 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore. This Court also permitted the claimant to withdraw 50 per cent of the deposited amount from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The accident happened in the year 2001 and hence, the court permits the claimant is only 1 person/injured Respondent-claimant to receive the balance amount lying to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 225 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. 2, Cuddalore, by filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law. Resultingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. II, at Cuddalore in M.C.O.P. No. 225 of 2004 is confirmed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.