Judgment :- 1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/second respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 15.12.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, awarding a compensation of Rs.31,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/second respondent, The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co., Ltd., Namakkal has filed the above appeal praying to scale down the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 28.02.2003, the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN29 P6238, for his urgent medical purpose, from Baiyanapalli to Kundrapalli Junction road. The motorcycle was driven by one Varadaraj on the extreme left side of the road, towards Hosur. When the motorcycle was nearing Arunagiri Rice Mill, a lorry bearing registration No.TN47 A7599 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed dashed the motorcycle from behind, due to this the rider of the motorcycle lost his control and hit against another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA05 R0402, which came on the opposite direction, as such the petitioner along with the rider of the motorcycle, sustained injuries. 4. The said accident was registered by the Kurubarapalli Police Station in Crime No.81/2003 under Sections 271, 337, 38 and 304(A) of I.P.C. the petitioner further submits that immediately after the said accident he was rushed to the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri for preliminary treatment. Thereafter he was referred to St.Johns Medical College Hospital at Bangalore, wherein he had undergone surgical operation for the fracture of the left tibia and fixed two steel plates on the operated region. At the time of the said accident, the petitioner was 21 years old and was doing coconut and vegetable business, earning a sum of Rs.4,000/-per month. Hence, the petitioner claims a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest against the respondents. 5. The second respondent has filed a counter statement denying all the allegations made in the claim petition. At the time of the said accident, the petitioner was 21 years old and was doing coconut and vegetable business, earning a sum of Rs.4,000/-per month. Hence, the petitioner claims a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest against the respondents. 5. The second respondent has filed a counter statement denying all the allegations made in the claim petition. The respondent stated that the injured person was travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle along with two other persons, which is a violation of motor vehicle traffic rules. The rider of the motorcycle was not in possession of a valid driving licence. The rider of the motorcycle lost his control as a result of riding with three persons on the bike and dashed against the other motorcycle. The recklessness and negligence on the part of the said motorcyclist was apparent. The two motorcyclists and their respective Insurance Companies are necessary parties in this case, but were not added as parties in the claim petition. Hence, this petition is not maintainable against the respondent. The respondent further denies the age, income and avocation of petitioner. Further, the compensation amount is excessive and the rate of interest is on the higher side. Hence, the respondent prays to dismiss the claim petition. 6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely: (i) Who is responsible for the accident? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 7. On the petitioners side two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and six documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6. On the respondents side no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. 8. The petitioner was examined as PW1. The PW1, in his evidence, had adduced evidence that the motorcycle had been driven by one Varadaraj, and that the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on it along with another pillion rider, on 28.03.2003, at about 05.30 p.m. on the Krishnagiri Highways Road. At that time, the first respondents lorry, which was coming from the said direction in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle. The said accident was registered by the concerned Police Office at Kurubarapalli on the complaint of one Sivalingam. The FIR was marked as Ex.P1. At that time, the first respondents lorry, which was coming from the said direction in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle. The said accident was registered by the concerned Police Office at Kurubarapalli on the complaint of one Sivalingam. The FIR was marked as Ex.P1. The same was not resisted by the respondent by way of oral or documentary evidence. As such, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the accident had happened due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. Further, the PW1 adduced evidence stating that the lorry was insured with the second respondent at the time of the accident and the insurance policy was prevailing. Supporting this contention, the petitioner has narrated Ex.P4-Insurance Policy. Considering this evidence, the Tribunal had fastened the liability on the respondents. As such, the second respondent is liable to pay compensation. Further, the PW1 adduced evidence that he had undergone treatment at Government Hospital at Krishnagiri and St.Johns Medical College Hospital at Bangalore. He marked Ex.P2-Accident Report and Ex.p3-Medical Summary particulars. 9. One Dr.Ashok Kumar was examined as PW2. The PW2, in his evidence, stated that the petitioner sustained injury on the head, left leg fracture of two bones for which, the claimant had undergone surgical operation. On the operated region, the skin has constricted. The Doctor after examining the petitioner and his medical records, has assessed the disability at 60%. After considering the evidence of the PW1 and PW2 and the medical records, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- under the head of disability, Rs.10,000/- under the head of pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- under the head of transport, Rs.17,000/- under the head of bone fracture and injuries. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.62,000/-as compensation to the petitioner, 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 had fixed negligence on the part of the motorcycle rider as 50% contributory negligence. As such, the Tribunal ordered to the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.31,000/-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. Further, the said amount was to be paid within a period of two months. As such, the Tribunal ordered to the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.31,000/-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. Further, the said amount was to be paid within a period of two months. The Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.1,300/-. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that in the instant case two motorcycles had dashed against each other and there is no involvement by the lorry. As such, the lorry is not an offending vehicle. Under these circumstances, the learned Tribunal had erroneously fastened the liability on the Insurance Company and ordered them to pay compensation to the claimant. The learned counsel further argued that the rate of interest at 9% per annum is on the excessive side. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent argued that considering the nature of injuries, surgical operation, disability and period of treatment, the quantum of compensation is on the lower side. The Tribunal had fixed the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, which is erroneous in the absence of evidence. Considering the age, income and disability percentage, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the compensation on the higher side. Under these circumstances the appeal is not maintainable. Hence, the learned counsel prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, on scrutiny of the findings of the Tribunal and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the view that as per the Doctors evidence, the claimant sustained 60% disability in the said accident and had undergone surgical operation on his left leg for two bone fractures and that the age of the claimant was 21 years. Considering these aspects, the quantum of compensation is not on the higher side. Hence, this Court confirms the Award and Decree, dated 15.12.2004, in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri as it is found to be fair and equitable. 13. On 22.07.2005, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount, into the credit of M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri. 14. 13. On 22.07.2005, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount, into the credit of M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri. 14. On 31.10.2006, this Court permitted the claimant to withdraw 50% of the compensation amount with accrued interest, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri. 15. It is open to the claimant to withdraw the balance compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, by filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law, subject to the deduction of withdrawals if any. 16. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Award and Decree, dated 15.12.2004, in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.