Judgment :- 1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants/petitioner .against the Award and Decree, dated 23.06.2006, made in M.C.O.P.No.4003 of 2001, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Court No.IV, Chennai, awarding a compensation of Rs.12,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Having not been satisfied with the said Award and Decree, the appellant/petitioner has filed the above appeal praying for additional compensation amount of Rs.88,000/-. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 10.07.2001, at about 07.00 a.m. the petitioner was in the tricycle, which was proceeding north to south in Rajaji Salai, Chennai, when the college bus bearing registration No.TN22 M6939 coming behind the tricycle at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the tricycle. Resultantly the tricycle overturned and the petitioner sustained grievous injuries on his hip and head. Hence, she filed a claim petition against the respondents for claiming a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest and costs. 4. The petitioner further submitted that at the time of the said accident she was aged about 48 years old and she is a fish vendor. She was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month through her occupation. The petitioner further submitted that the accident case was registered against the driver of the college bus, by the Traffic Investigation, C2, Elephantgate Police Station in Crime No.174/C-2/2001. 5. The second respondent has filed a counter statement and opposed the claim petitioner on various grounds. The second respondent submitted that on 10.07.2001, at about 07.00 a.m. at Rajaji Salai, the bus bearing registration No.TN22 M6939 knocked down the petitioner sustaining grievous injury and the liability of this respondent are all false, baseless and this respondent denies the same. The second respondent also denies that the first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and has insured with the second respondent and as such the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation. Further, the second respondent submitted that the driver of the insured vehicle J.Suresh Kumar does not have HPV endorsement on the driving licence and as such the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. Further, the petitioner claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is excessive. Further, the second respondent submitted that the driver of the insured vehicle J.Suresh Kumar does not have HPV endorsement on the driving licence and as such the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. Further, the petitioner claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is excessive. The second respondent further denies the occupation, income and age of the claimant. Hence, the second respondent prays to dismiss the claim petition stating that the claim petition is not maintainable against the second respondent. 6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration, namely: (i) By whose negligence, the said accident had happened? (ii) If the accident had happened by the negligence of the first respondent, how much amount the second respondent is liable to pay as compensation? 7. On the petitioners side two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and four documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P4. On the respondents side no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. 8. The petitioner was examined as PW1. PW1 in her evidence stating that on 10.07.2001, at about 07.00 a.m. the petitioner was on the tricycle, which was proceeding north to south in Rajaji Salai, Chennai, when the college bus bearing registration No.TN22 M6939 coming behind the tricycle at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the tricycle. Resultantly the tricycle overturned and the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. In the result, she sustained grievous injuries on her two leg joints. Further, prior to the said accident, she had undergone surgical operation on her stomach. After the said accident, the said surgery became complications. Further, she had taken treatment at Government Hospital for two days as inpatient. Regarding the said accident, FIR registered by the Traffic Investigation, C2, Elephantgate Police Station in Crime No.174/C-2/2001. For which, Exs.P2, First Information Report and P3, Sketch were marked. Considering the evidence of the PW1 and Exs.P2 and P3, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the first and second respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 9. One Dr.R.Thiagarajan was examined as PW2. PW2 in his evidence stating that in the said accident, the claimant sustained blood injuries on her body. Further, she underwent surgical operation on her stomach. Due to the said accident, the stitches were removed. As such, her condition became complicated. 9. One Dr.R.Thiagarajan was examined as PW2. PW2 in his evidence stating that in the said accident, the claimant sustained blood injuries on her body. Further, she underwent surgical operation on her stomach. Due to the said accident, the stitches were removed. As such, her condition became complicated. Further, the PW2 examined the petitioner and assessed the disability as 30%. The Disability Certificate was marked as Ex.P4. 10. After considering the evidence of the PW1, PW2 and Disability Certificate issued by the PW2, duration of medical treatment and nature of injuries, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.2,000/-under the head of disability and pain and suffering respectively, as compensation to the petitioner, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. Further, the Tribunal directed the respondent to deposit the entire compensation within a period of two months from the date of its Order. In turn, the said compensation amount was to be deposited in any one of a nationalised bank for a period of three years in a fixed deposit scheme. After such deposit is made, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the compensation amount lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.4003 of 2001, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Court No.IV, Chennai. 11. Having not been satisfied with the said Award and Decree, the appellant/petitioner has filed the above appeal praying for additional compensation amount of Rs.88,000/-together with interest and costs. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the claimant is a fish vendor. After the said accident, she is unable to perform her occupation as prior to the said accident. Further, the learned counsel argued that prior to the said accident, she also underwent surgical operation. Further, the learned Judge failed to consider the discharge summary marked as Ex.P1 and the learned Judge grossly erred in granting only a sum of Rs.2,000/- for pain and suffering to the appellant, who had inpatient treatment in Government General Hospital followed by O.P.treatment under private doctors. The learned Judge erred in awarding only a sum of Rs.10,000/- for 30% permanent disability, which sum is less than the sum statutorily payable under no fault liability. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent argued that the PW2 is the competent Doctor. The learned Judge erred in awarding only a sum of Rs.10,000/- for 30% permanent disability, which sum is less than the sum statutorily payable under no fault liability. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent argued that the PW2 is the competent Doctor. After examining the claimant and verified the medical records, he assessed the disability at 30%, which was sustained by the claimant in the said accident. Further, the PW2 also adduced evidence supporting to the Disability Certificate. Further, the claimant sustained only simple injuries for which she was an inpatient for two days in Government Hospital, Chennai. In the instant case, medical expenses and transport expenses will not be attracted, since the claimant had taken free treatment in Government Hospital and she is a local in the metro city and the award and decree is a well considered one. Hence, the learned counsel has prayed to dismiss the above appeal. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the view that the quantum of compensation is on the lower side and there is some discrepancy in the said award and decree. Hence, this Court decides to grant additional compensation to the claimant as follows: 1. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-under the head of pain and suffering. This Court enhances the said award to Rs.5,000/-, 2. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-under the head of disability. This Court enhances the said award to Rs.20,000/-, 3. This Court grants a sum of Rs.1,000/- under the head of transport expenses, 4. This Court grants a sum of Rs.1,000/- under the head of medical expenses, In total, this Court grants a sum of Rs.27,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. This Court awards a sum of Rs.15,000/- as additional compensation amount to the claimant. The additional compensation amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.4003 of 2001, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Court No.IV, Chennai, which is fair and equitable. 15. The additional compensation amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.4003 of 2001, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Court No.IV, Chennai, which is fair and equitable. 15. Therefore, this Court directs the second respondent to deposit the additional compensation amount of Rs.15,000/-together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.4003 of 2001, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Court No.IV, Chennai, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16. After such deposit being made into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.4003 of 2001, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Court No.IV, Chennai, the claimant is at liberty to withdraw the compensation amount by making proper payment out application in accordance with law. 17. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the Award and Decree, dated 23.06.2006, made in M.C.O.P.No.4003 of 2001, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Court No.IV, Chennai, is modified. There shall be no order as to costs.