Judgment :- The appellant/second respondent has filed the above civil miscellaneous appeal No.1165 of 2005 against the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2004 made in MCOP No.368 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional Subordinate Court, Nagapattinam awarding a compensation of Rs.58,600/-with interest at 9% from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit of compensation amount under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Aggrieved by the above said order, the appellant/National Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows; The petitioner is residing at Bamini Village in Thiruthuraipoondi and he is working as an agriculturist and earning Rs.4,500/-per month. On 28.09.2001, at 07.30 p.m., while he was walking on the left side of the Nagapattinam Thiruthuraipoondi road, which is between Arunthavampulam Main road and TNCSC road, a mini lorry bearing registration No.TN-55-D-6683, driven by its driver with a high speed and negligent manner, without sounding of horn and in violation of traffic rules, dashed against the petitioner on his back side. In the result, the petitioners right shoulder bone and right forearm bone were fractured. Further, the petitioner sustained a tear on his ear. Further, bones in the middle of his head was also fractured and he sustained other bodily injuries. He was taken in the said mini lorry and admitted at Thiruthuraipoondi Government Hospital and given first aid. Subsequently, he was taken to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur and took treatment as inpatient from 28.09.2001 to 110. 2001. Subsequently, he took treatment at Mannargudi Government Hospital, once a week as out patient and has also been taking medical treatment under one doctor Rajagopal. The Thalaignayathu Police Station has registered a criminal case in crime no.535 of 2001 against the driver of the mini lorry under Sections 279 and 338 of I.P.C. At the time of accident, the petitioner was aged 23 years. Before the accident, the petitioner was healthy and strong and was supporting his family. Subsequent to the accident, due to fractures and injuries sustained by him, he has not been able to do any work. He is not able to carry out even his day to day work without the help of others. Before the accident, the petitioner was healthy and strong and was supporting his family. Subsequent to the accident, due to fractures and injuries sustained by him, he has not been able to do any work. He is not able to carry out even his day to day work without the help of others. The petitioner has stated that due to the accident, he has constant pain and suffering and he and his family members have been in a state of mental agony. As such, the first respondent, being the employer of the driver of mini lorry and also the owner of the mini lorry bearing registration No.TN-55-D-6683 and its insurer, the second respondent are both individually and jointly liable to pay compensation. Hence, the petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with 18% interest from the date of petition till date of payment of compensation under various head of pain and suffering, loss of income, permanent disability and medical expenses and others. 4. The second respondent in its counter had resisted the above claim. It has been stated that as the vehicle owner has not submitted the claim form and vehicular documents, the second respondent denies that the first respondent vehicle was insured with it. The second respondent also denies that the vehicle had valid RC, FC and permit on the date of the alleged accident. The second respondent also denied that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini lorry. Further, the age, income and occupation of the petitioner were not admitted. Further, the claim of the petitioner is excessive. In its additional counter, the second respondent had submitted that after the alleged accident, the injured petitioner was brought to the hospital in the very same vehicle i.e. the vehicle which hit the petitioner. The occurrence was said to have taken place on 28.09.2001 around 07.30 p.m. The injured was brought to the hospital on the same day around 08.20 p.m. Before the Doctor, the registration number of the vehicle involved in the accident had been stated as TN-55-8366. Further in the first information report, the registration number of the vehicle involved in the accident has been stated as TN-55-8366. This is the first version regarding the registration number of the vehicle involved in the accident. The second respondent submits that the vehicle bearing the registration No.TN-55-8366 is not insured. Further in the first information report, the registration number of the vehicle involved in the accident has been stated as TN-55-8366. This is the first version regarding the registration number of the vehicle involved in the accident. The second respondent submits that the vehicle bearing the registration No.TN-55-8366 is not insured. Therefore, the petitioner had colluded with the first respondent and also with the help of the police, the first respondents vehicle bearing registration No.TN-55-D-6683 was substituted with a view to get a huge amount of compensation from the respondent. The vehicle was also sent to the motor vehicle Inspector for inspection belatedly on 110. 2001. The second respondent submits that the driver of the vehicle was one Bhuvendran S/o Ganesan and that the said Bhuvendran did not have valid driving licence. Therefore, the petitioner has now impleaded that the driver of the vehicle was one Mathiyazhagan S/o Rajalingam at the time of accident. The amendment sought by the petitioner to amend the name of the driver as Mathiyazhagan instead of Bhuvendran is not legally correct. Further, the amount of compensation claimed is excessive. It is also submitted that the income of the petitioner has been exaggerated in the petition to boost the claim. 5. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues namely 1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation and 2) If so, who is liable to give the compensation? 6. The petitioner has submitted that on 28.09.2001, at about 07.30 p.m., while he was walking on the left of Arunthavampulam Main road, a mini lorry bearing registration No. TN-55-D-6683, driven by its driver with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner hit against his back and had thus caused injuries to him. The petitioner had therefore claimed compensation. The first respondent, the owner of the said mini lorry, was absent, and set exparte. The second respondent has contended that the registration number of the mini lorry as given by the petitioner is incorrect and as such, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. 7. PW1, in his sworn statement had submitted that he was hit by the mini lorry, due to the high speed and rash negligent driving by the driver of the mini lorry. 7. PW1, in his sworn statement had submitted that he was hit by the mini lorry, due to the high speed and rash negligent driving by the driver of the mini lorry. From an examination of the criminal case filed by the Thalaignayathu police station in Crime No.535 of 2001, which is revealed by EX.P1, the registration number of the lorry has been entered as TN-55-8366. The first information report has been given by one Palanikumar and not by the petitioner. On an examination of the disability certificate furnished by petitioner, it is evident that on 28.09.2001 at about 08.20 p.m. he was admitted in the Thiruthuraipoondi Government Hospital in an unconscious state. Further, due to his grievous injuries, which was around 6 to 7, he had been advised to get admitted in Thanjavur Government Hospital. Hence, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the First Information Report could not have been filed by the petitioner and that some other person had filed the first information report. Further on examination of the final report Ex.P2, it has been shown that the vehicle involved in the accident was TN-55-O-6683. But in the motor vehicle inspectors report as per Ex.P4, the vehicles registration number has been given as TN-55-D-6683 KVMGV and that this vehicle has been given for testing. So, on perusal of the first information report, EX.P2 and Ex.P4, it is evident that there is a discrepancy in the registration number furnished. The petitioner has submitted that the correct registration number has been erased in the final report i.e. Ex.P2. But on inspection of Ex.P4, the registration number given is the same as in Ex.P2. Therefore, the Tribunal had come to the view that this issue could not be decided and that a separate case has to be registered. Further, the Tribunal has not able to decide on the issue of the correct vehicle involved in the accident as the first information report was not filed by the petitioner, but has been filed by some other person. As such, the Tribunal, on considering the final report and motor vehicle inspectors report, has come to a conclusion that the vehicle involved in the accident, was the vehicle which has been insured with the second respondent and so, the Tribunal has decided that the second respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. As such, the Tribunal, on considering the final report and motor vehicle inspectors report, has come to a conclusion that the vehicle involved in the accident, was the vehicle which has been insured with the second respondent and so, the Tribunal has decided that the second respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Further the Tribunal was of the opinion that in the case it was established, after the trial, that the vehicle involved in the accident was some other vehicle, the second respondent can collect the compensation amount from the first respondent. Further the second respondent allegation is that the name of the owner has been changed as per Ex.P4, has also got to be decided by filing a separate case. Further on inspection of Ex.P4, the motor vehicle inspector has certified that only the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-55-D-6683 has been delivered for testing and inspection. The driver of this vehicle was Mathiazhagan and the name of the owner was Subbian of Pullichankadu karikatti Anna Vayal Post office, Pudukkottai. Further the licence for the said vehicle was in force till 08.02.2003, and that it has been covered by insurance till 22.02.2004 and that the name of the insurance company was National Insurance company. Further, the first respondent was examined as RW1 and he has deposed that if it had been given that the registration number of the vehicle involved in the accident is TN-55-6683, then it is accepted by him that the vehicle involved is his and that he has insured the same with the second respondent. Accordingly, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the first and second respondents are separately or jointly responsible for giving compensation to the petitioner. 8. On examination of Ex.P3, it was concluded that the petitioner sustained 6 to 7 grievous injuries. Further it came to light that the petitioner had been sent to Thanjavur Government Hospital for further treatment from Thiruthuraipoondi Government Hospital. From an examination of Ex.P5, discharge summary given by Thanjavur Government Hospital, it is evident that the petitioner has been admitted on 28.09.2001 and taken treatment, as inpatient, till 110. 2001. Further Xrays had been taken of his forearms as per Ex.P8. From an examination of Ex.P5, discharge summary given by Thanjavur Government Hospital, it is evident that the petitioner has been admitted on 28.09.2001 and taken treatment, as inpatient, till 110. 2001. Further Xrays had been taken of his forearms as per Ex.P8. Further, PW2, the Doctor, in his evidence has submitted that the Urimeral bone in his right hand has been fractured and due to this his right hand has become bent slightly and due to loss of flesh in right hand, the petitioner has difficulty in lifting objects. The Doctor further certified that the disability suffered by petitioner is 44% and Ex.P7, disability certificate and Ex.P8, Xray were marked in support of his evidence. But on examination of Exs.P6, P7 and P8 and on cross examination of PW2, it was admitted by PW2 that he had not treated the petitioner and that he had not calculated the disability as per Workmen Compensation Act. Hence, the Tribunal fixed the disability of the petitioner as 15%. The age of the petitioner was taken as 24 as per Ex.P7. The multiplier of 17 was taken as per Motor Vehicles Act. As there was no proof about his occupation, a nominal salary of Rs.1,500/-per month was taken as petitioners salary. Taking all these factors into account, the future loss of income due to disability was calculated as Rs.45,600/-Further taking into account that the petitioner was hospitialised in Thanjavur Government Hospital as inpatient from 28.09.2001 to 110. 2001, and considering the discharge summary issued by the Thanjavur Government Hospital, the Tribunal granted Rs.8,000/-for pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards attendants fees, Transport and nutrition and awarded a total compensation of Rs.58,600/-. Accordingly the Tribunal directed that the first and second respondents should jointly or individually deposit Rs.58,600/-together with interest at 9% from the date of petition till date of deposit of compensation and that Rs.35,000/-should be deposited as fixed deposit in UCO Bank, Nagapattinam Branch in the credit of the petitioner for three years and that the petitioner can receive the above said fixed deposit after three years from the bank. Further it permitted the petitioner to withdraw the balance amount immediately from the credit of MCOP No.368 of 2003, as soon as the award was deposited. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the vehicle TN-55-D-6683 was not at all involved in the said accident on 28.01.2001. Further it permitted the petitioner to withdraw the balance amount immediately from the credit of MCOP No.368 of 2003, as soon as the award was deposited. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the vehicle TN-55-D-6683 was not at all involved in the said accident on 28.01.2001. Regarding the same point, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had suggested that if there is any dispute regarding the vehicle involved in the accident, it is open to the appellant to initiate separate proceedings. As such, the Tribunals award is totally wrong. The claimant has also not proved the said vehicle was involved in the accident. The learned counsel for appellant further submitted that without scrutinising the vehicle particulars, the Tribunal had come to a wrong conclusion. 10. For the foregoing reasons and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court opines that the insurance company had raised strong objection before the Tribunal stating that the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-55-D-6683 is not involved in the accident, but the learned Tribunal has rightly pointed out that, if any forgery was involved for getting compensation against the insurance company, it is open to them to initiate separate proceedings i.e. criminal proceedings against the person/persons involved. But in the instant case, the claimant took treatment in two Government Hospitals i.e. Thiruthuraipoondi Government Hospital and Thanjavur Government Hospital for injures sustained in the accident. The medical treatment discharge summary proves that the claimant met with an accident. The learned counsel for appellant has disputed the accident only on the question of vehicle involved in the accident. The insurance company, instead of disputing the claim, before this Court, that some criminal irregularities had happened should have approached some other forum and established the said irregularities. If it had been proved in the criminal court, that irregularities had occurred only then the second respondent can raise this issue before the trial Court. 11. The learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the injured claimant on the basis of existing records and on evidence adduced by the parties. So, this Court could not find any discrepancy in the award passed by the Tribunal, Additional Subordinate Court, Nagapattinam in MCOP NO.368 of 2003. Hence, the award granted by the Tribunal is confirmed by this Court. 12. Already the case came before this Court on 18.01.2007. So, this Court could not find any discrepancy in the award passed by the Tribunal, Additional Subordinate Court, Nagapattinam in MCOP NO.368 of 2003. Hence, the award granted by the Tribunal is confirmed by this Court. 12. Already the case came before this Court on 18.01.2007. This Court permitted the claimant to withdraw a sum of Rs.15,000/-from the credit of MCOP No.368 of 2003. This Court hereby directs the appellant/second respondent to deposit the balance compensation amount as per learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with accrued interest at the rate of 9% per annum. As the accident happened in the year 2001, it is open to the respondent/claimant to receive the balance amount lying to the credit of MCOP NO.368 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional Subordinate Court, Nagapattinam by filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law. 13. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and consequently, the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Subordinate Court, Nagapattinam in MCOP NO.368 of 2003 dated 15.09.2004 is confirmed. The parties are directed to bear their own cost in this appeal.