Judgment :- The appeal is preferred by the Transport Corporation-appellant against the Judgment and Decree made in MACT.OP.No.628 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Judge, Court of Small Causes) at Chennai dated 23.07.2008. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 07.02.2006 at about 6.30 p.m., the injured was walking at Anna Nagar III Avenue road, Chennai. At that time, a motorcycle (M.80) bearing Registration No.TN-02-Q-4402 belonging to the second respondent herein came from south to north in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant/injured. Due to the same, she was sustained grievous injuries. She claimed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-as compensation. The said motorcycle was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider or not? 2. What is the compensation the claimant is entitled to? 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 riding of the rider of the motorcycle and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of during treatment period Rs. 40,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/-Medical expenses Rs. 5,000/-Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-Permanent disability 45% Rs. 45,000/- Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/-Total... Rs. 1,50,000/-Aggrieved by that award, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification and therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimant submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is one Dr.Thiagarajan. Ex.P.1 is the OP Chit from KMC Hospital. Ex.P.2 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P.3 is the disability certificate. Ex.P.4 is the X-ray. On the side of the appellant-Insurance Company, no one was examined and no document was marked to support their claim. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 35 years. She is a Supervisor in A.G.M. Sports Manufacturing Co., Anna nagar, Chennai-40 and earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. She is P.W.1 and in her evidence, she has deposed that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle. Due to the accident she has sustained the following injuries; Both bone fracture over right leg; Dislocation of bone over left leg ankle; Injury over both hands and legs and multiple injuries all over the body. The rider of the motorcycle charge sheeted for offences in Cr.No.53/AS3/2003 by Anna Nagar Police Station. Immediately after the accident, she was admitted in K.M.C.Hospital, Chennai and later she was taken treatment in a Private Hospital, Chennai from 07.02.2006 to till now. P.W.2 is one Dr.Thiyagarajan examined the claimant and in his evidence, it is stated that the claimant suffering bone fracture and fracture of tibial condyle at right knee and dislocation of bone over left leg ankle. Further, due to the injury, she is unable to walk, stand substantially and unable to lift any heavy articles and unable to do any work as before. The doctor assessed the disability at 45%. Ex.P.3 is the disability certificate. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence and also the Doctors evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards permanent disability. Normally the Courts used to award Rs.1000/- to 2000/- for each percentage of disability. The doctor assessed the disability at 45%. Ex.P.3 is the disability certificate. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence and also the Doctors evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards permanent disability. Normally the Courts used to award Rs.1000/- to 2000/- for each percentage of disability. In this case, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- for each percentage of disability and arrived Rs.45,000/-(45% x 1000) towards permanent disability, which is just, fair and reasonable award amount and the same is hereby confirmed. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of income during the treatment period. The injured was admitted in K.M.C Hospital, Chennai and later he was taken treatment in a private hospital, Chennai. Due to this, the injured would have not earned income during the treatment period. After considering the monthly income at Rs.5,000/- per month, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards loss of income during the treatment period as against Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment, a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses and a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards transport expenses. After considering that the treatment taken in various hospitals, these are very reasonable award amount and the same are hereby confirmed. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-towards pain and suffering. After considering the nature of injury as stated above and also available evidence on record, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards pain and suffering as against Rs.50,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also awarded the interest rate at 7.5%, which is very reasonable and the same is hereby confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Loss of during treatment period Rs.15,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 5,000/- Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- Permanent disability 45% Rs.45,000/- Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total... Rs.95,000/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.95,000/-as against the compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that already entire award amount has been deposited as per order of this Court dated 28.07.2009. 5,000/- Total... Rs.95,000/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.95,000/-as against the compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that already entire award amount has been deposited as per order of this Court dated 28.07.2009. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified award amount of Rs.95,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn on making proper application. The appellant-Insurance Company is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount on making proper application. 8. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.