Judgment :- 1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner against the Award and Decree, dated 17.12.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.2560 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.VI, Chennai, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,63,500/- with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/petitioner has filed the above appeal praying for the additional compensation amount of Rs.4,66,500/- together with interest. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 06.03.2000, at about 00.20 hours, the petitioner was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.TN07 D3727 from Tambaram to Pammal along G.S.T.Road. While he was so proceeding opposite to MEPZ Company Gate, Tambaram Sanatorium, a motorcycle bearing registration No.TN20 Y1356, which was driven in a rash, speed and negligent manner came from the opposite direction, came from its wrong side and dashed against the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN07 D3727, due to which the petitioner fell down and sustained serious injuries. 4. Regarding the said accident, B6, Tambaram Police Station has registered a case in Crime No.231/2000. 5. At the time of accident, the petitioner was aged about 26 years old, his academic qualification being a Diploma in Civil Engineering and he was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month through self-employment. Immediately after the said accident, he was rushed to the Government General Hospital, Chennai for preliminary treatment. Thereafter, he underwent treatment at Swaram Hospital, Indira Nagar, Chennai-20, as inpatient. 6. The accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving by the first respondent. His motorcycle was registered with the second respondent/New India Insurance Co., Ltd., As such, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable topay compensation. Hence, the petitioner is claiming a compensation from the respondents for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest. 7. The first respondent was set exparte. The second respondent filed a counter statement and opposed the claim petition stating that the allegation made by this claim petitioner is denied. The petitioner had not sustained any injury in the said accident. The second respondent states that the accident had happened on 06.03.2000 at 00.20 hrs. but the insurance policy renewed at 13.01 hours. As such, the insurance policy was renewed after the accident. The petitioner had not sustained any injury in the said accident. The second respondent states that the accident had happened on 06.03.2000 at 00.20 hrs. but the insurance policy renewed at 13.01 hours. As such, the insurance policy was renewed after the accident. So the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. The second respondent further stated that the claim is excessive and baseless. Hence, the second respondent prays to dismiss the claim petition. 8. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed four issues for the consideration namely: (i) Who is responsible for the said accident? (ii) Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation? (iii)Is the petitioner entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? (iv)What is other relief? 9. On the side of the petitioner three witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW3 and sixteen documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P6 namely Exs.P1 and P2-Discharge Summary; Ex.P3-CT Scan Report; Ex.P4-Eye Doctor Medical Receipt; Ex.P5-Scan Report; Ex.P6-Medical Bill series; Ex.P7-Medical Bill series; Ex.P8-Photo with negative; Ex.P9-Educational Qualification Certificate; Ex.P10-Employment Certificate; Ex.P11-Educational Qualification Certificate; Ex.P12-copy of Licence; Ex.P13-copy of FIR; Ex.P14-Disability Certificate; Ex.P15-Xray and Ex.P16-Disability Certificate. On the side of the second respondent no witness was examined and no documents were marked. 10. The petitioner was examined as PW1. In his evidence he adduced that on 06.03.2008, at about 12.20 hours while he was proceeding to his house on his motorcycle bearing registration No.TN07 D3727, from Tambaram to Pammal, at that time the first respondents motorcycle bearing registration No.TN20 Y1356 came across his path and dashed against the petitioners motorcycle, resulting he sustained injuries. The accident case was registered, the FIR was marked as Ex.P13. On the side of the second respondent no one was examined and no documents were marked. Hence, on the basis of the petitioners evidence and Ex.P13-FIR, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the rider of the motorcycle is responsible for the said accident. 11. The first respondents motorcycle insured with the second respondent. But the second respondent has narrated in his counter statement stating that at the time of accident the insurance policy was not in force, but subsequently the policy was renewed at 13.01 hours on 06.03.2000. To establish this point on the side of the second respondent, no one has given evidence. As such, the second respondents contention cannot be accepted. But the second respondent has narrated in his counter statement stating that at the time of accident the insurance policy was not in force, but subsequently the policy was renewed at 13.01 hours on 06.03.2000. To establish this point on the side of the second respondent, no one has given evidence. As such, the second respondents contention cannot be accepted. Even though, the first respondents vehicle has been insured with the second respondent. Hence, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the second respondent is liable to pay compensation. 12. The petitioner further adduced evidence that the said accident resulted in his nose being broken, fore head bone becoming dented and incurring bone fractured. Besides blood injuries sustained on his face, hand and legs. Immediately, he was rushed to the Government Hospital at Chrompet. Thereafter, he was referred to the G.G.Hospital, Chennai. From there he was further referred to the Swaram Hospital, Adyar, wherein he was an inpatient from 07.03.2002 to 15.03.2002. Thereafter, he had undergone treatment at Vijaya Hospital for injuries sustained in his eye. At the time of accident, he possessed a Diplomo in Civil Engineering and was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-per month as a labour contractor. After the said accident, he is unable to perform his normal profession. He is having giddiness and unable to stand in the sunlight. Regarding medical treatment, the claimant has marked Exs.P1 to P7. Ex.P9 to P11 indicates his educational qualification. Ex.P12 is driving licence. Hence, the claimant has made a claim for Rs.6,00,000/-. 13. Dr.Saichandran was examined as PW2. In his evidence he adduced that in the said accident the petitioners nose bone was broken, bent and deformed. Further, the claimant is feeling uneasiness in his respiration. After examining the petitioner, the PW2 issued a Disability Certificate stating that the petitioner sustained 25% disability. He has also marked Ex.P14-Disability Certificate and Ex.P15-Xray. 14. Dr.Rajappa had adduced evidence that he had examined the claimant and stated that the claimant had sustained bone fracture on his left eye ball and his left eye had become big, movement also reduced, the power of his vision is 6/18. The PW3 assessed that the claimant sustained 25% partial disability. He also marked Ex.P15-Xray and Ex.P16-Disability Certificate. 15. The learned counsel for the second respondent argued that the petitioner suffered simple injury, but the Disability Certificate assessed by the Doctor is excessive. The PW3 assessed that the claimant sustained 25% partial disability. He also marked Ex.P15-Xray and Ex.P16-Disability Certificate. 15. The learned counsel for the second respondent argued that the petitioner suffered simple injury, but the Disability Certificate assessed by the Doctor is excessive. Compensation amount claimed by the petitioner is also excessive. 16. After considering the documentary evidence, the Tribunal had granted a compensation as follows: 1. Rs.25,000/- awarded under the head of loss of income, 2. Rs.12,000/- awarded under the head of transport and nutrition for each respectively, 3. Rs.400/- awarded under the head of damages to cloths, 4. Rs.26,600/- awarded under the head of medical expenses, 5. Rs.2,500/- awarded under the head of attendant charges, 6. Rs.15,000/- awarded under the head of pain and suffering, 7. Rs.50,000/- awarded under the head of partial disability, 8. Rs.40,000/- awarded under the head of loss of earning power, In total, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,63,500/-together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. The Tribunal further directed the second respondent that the award amount should be deposit within a period of eight weeks into the Court. The Tribunal permitted the claimant to withdraw a sum of Rs.81,750/-together with interest. In turn, the balance amount to be deposited in any one of the nationalised bank for a period of three years under the fixed deposit scheme. The Advocate fees fixed at Rs.6,170/-. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- for partial permanent disability is on the lower side. After the accident the petitioner is having breathing problem and visual impairment. As such, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/-for attendant charges is also on the lower side. The compensation under the heads of nutrition and transport are not considered properly. The learned counsel further argued that a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of earning power is on the lower side. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/-for attendant charges is also on the lower side. The compensation under the heads of nutrition and transport are not considered properly. The learned counsel further argued that a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of earning power is on the lower side. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in support of his contention has cited the following Judgment made in C.M.A. (NPD-S) No.637 of 2002 and C.M.A.No.(NPD-B) No.126 of 2003, Madras High Court, R.Ravichandran vs.M/s.Yogam Exports & Another; The New India Assurance Co., Ltd., vs. R.Ravichandran & Another, wherein the Paragraph Nos.7, 8, 9 and 10 are held as follows: "7. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,10,250/- under the following heads: (i) Loss of earning from 24.02.1998 to 23.10.1998 : Rs.18,000.00 (ii)Transportation expenses to hospital : Rs. 1,000.00 (iii)Extra nourishment : Rs. 1,000.00 (iv)Medical expenses : Rs. 250.00 (v)Future Medical expenses : Rs. 5,000.00 (vi)Mental agony for loss of vision in left eye & pain and suffering : Rs.75,000.00 (vii)Permanent disability : Rs.70,000.00 (viii)Loss of earning power : Rs.40,000.00 Total :Rs.2,10,250.00 8. In view of this court, except the compensation granted under the heads permanent disability and loss of earning power, the compensation awarded under other heads are proper. This court feels that the compensation under the heads permanent disability and loss of earning power have to be merged and awarded under one head. 9. As per the averments in the claim petition, the claimant is a Diploma Holder; he was a supervisor and was doing real estate business, earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal has taken in to consideration the above said aspects and fixed his monthly income at Rs.3,000/-. However, for the purpose of granting compensation, this court takes Rs.1800/- as the monthly income of the claimant and following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in its decision reported in 2008 ACJ (9) (Sunil Kumar vs. Ram Singh Gaud and others), this court deducts one-third towards miscellaneous expenses and fixes the loss of income per month at Rs.1200/-; the annual loss of income is arrived at Rs.14,400/-. Since the claimant was aged 31 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of 16 is adopted and the compensation to the claimant towards permanent disability and loss of earning power is fixed at Rs.2,30,400/-. Since the claimant was aged 31 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of 16 is adopted and the compensation to the claimant towards permanent disability and loss of earning power is fixed at Rs.2,30,400/-. In other respects, the award of the Tribunal shall remain undisturbed. 10. In fine, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,30,650/-as total compensation and the second respondent is directed to pay the enhanced compensation to the claimant along with interest for the same at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of this order. Resultantly, C.M.A.No.637 of 2002 filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation is allowed in part and C.M.A.No.126 of 2003 filed by the Insurance Company for reduction in compensation is dismissed. No costs." 18. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent vehemently argued that the award is a well considered one after considering the nature of injuries and mode of treatment etc., The learned counsel further argued that there is no documentary evidence that the claimant had undergone treatment for a long period at various hospitals. Even though the PW2 and PW3 Doctors evidence, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,63,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, which is a reasonable and fair. The rate of interest was 7.5% at the time of awarding the compensation. But, the Tribunal fixed the rate of interest at 9% is unacceptable. As such, the appeal is not maintainable, hence, the learned counsel prays for the dismissal of this appeal. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, scrutiny of the findings of the Tribunal and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that there is no discrepancy in the award granted by the Tribunal based on various heads except for partial and permanent disability. Under this head the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- for 50% disability, this Court enhances the compensation amount to Rs.1,00,000/-. As such, this Court awards an additional compensation amount of Rs.50,000/-. Under this head the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- for 50% disability, this Court enhances the compensation amount to Rs.1,00,000/-. As such, this Court awards an additional compensation amount of Rs.50,000/-. This amount will carry 7.5% interest from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.2560 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.VI, Chennai, which is found to be fair and equitable. The additional compensation amount granted by this Court on the basis of claimants age and disability percentage. 20. Therefore, this Court directs the second respondent/New India Insurance Co., ltd., to deposit the additional compensation amount of Rs.50,000/-with accrued interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, within a period of eight weeks, from the date of receipt of this Order, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.2560 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.VI, Chennai. 21. After such a deposit being made, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.2560 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.VI, Chennai, it is open to the appellant/claimant to withdraw the entire additional compensation amount with accrued interest thereon as observed above, after filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law. 22. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the Award and Decree, dated 17.12.2004, in M.C.O.P.No.2560 of 2000, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.VI, Chennai, is modified. There shall be no order as to costs.