Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance company against the award dated 11.02.2005 made in MCOP No.584 of 2003 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Judge), Cuddalore. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The first respondent-Umasankari met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 28.09.2002 at about 17.30 hours. While the claimant was standing in the mud portion of the road, a lorry bearing registration No.TN-55-D-3172 belonging to the second respondent and insured with the appellant-Insurance company, driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed, dashed against the minor Umasankari. Due to the said impact, the first respondent-claimant sustained crush injuries in the right leg and multiple injuries all over the body. The claimant was immediately admitted in Government Hospital, Cuddalore and then referred to Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai. She claimed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation before the Tribunal. The appellant-Insurance company resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry belonging to the second respondent? 2. Whether the driver possessed the valid driving licence? 3. Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation? If so how much? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, who possessed valid driving licence and awarded a compensation of Rs.6,24,011/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 15,000/-Car hire charges Rs. 1,592/- Medical expenses Rs. 2,419/- Permanent disability Rs. 2,50,000/- Loss of future earning Rs. 3,00,000/- Total... Rs. 6,24,011/- Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-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. He further submitted that when the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards permanent disability, it ought not to have awarded a further sum of Rs.3,00,000/-towards loss of future earning and the amount awarded towards pain and suffering is on the higher side. He further submitted that when the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards permanent disability, it ought not to have awarded a further sum of Rs.3,00,000/-towards loss of future earning and the amount awarded towards pain and suffering is on the higher side. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant submitted that the Tribunal has 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 learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. On the side of the appellant-Insurance company no one was examined and no document was marked to support their claim. PW1 is the father of the minor first respondent. PW2 is Dr.S.K.Raju. Ex.P1 is the xerox copy of the first information report. Ex.P2 is the xerox copy of the accident register. Ex.P3 is the case history certificate. Ex.P4 is the xerox copy of the insurance certificate. Ex.P5 is the car hire charges receipt. Ex.P6 is the medical bills. Ex.P7 is the xerox copy of the motor vehicle Inspection report. Ex.P8 is the disability certificate. Ex.P9 is the x-ray. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.6,24,011/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition and the finding in respect of the nature of accident is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 6 years. PW1 is the father of the claimant. 6. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 6 years. PW1 is the father of the claimant. He deposed that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry belonging to the second respondent and due to the said impact, the right leg below the knee was amputated and sustained multiple injuries all over the body and she took treatment in Government Hospital, Cuddalore and later referred to Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai, where she took treatment from 9.09.2002 to 07.11.2002. He further stated that due to the amputation of right leg an artificial limb was fixed. P.W2 Dr.Raju, who examined the injured, determined the disability at 70%. Ex.P8 is the disability certificate. Ex.P9 is X-ray. Due to the accident, the claimants below right knee was amputated and an artificial limb was fixed. After considering the oral and documentary evidence the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards permanent disability of 70% and considering the fact that the said disability affects the claimants future earning capacity, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards future loss of income. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that when the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards permanent disability, it ought not to have awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards future loss of earning. In the present case, the injured is a minor girl aged about 6 years and she lost her right leg below the knee, due to which, she cannot lead her normal life like others. Further, the injured being a girl, her marriage prospects would also be very much affected. Taking into consideration all these factors, I am of the view that it would be reasonable to award a consolidated sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards permanent disability of 70%. In view of awarding the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, it is not necessary to award separately any amount towards future loss of income as awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the said amount of Rs.3,00,000/-towards future loss of earning is deleted. The above said Rs.5,00,000/- includes the future prospects i.e. marriage prospect. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant relied on the decision of this Court in the case of THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. Therefore, the said amount of Rs.3,00,000/-towards future loss of earning is deleted. The above said Rs.5,00,000/- includes the future prospects i.e. marriage prospect. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant relied on the decision of this Court in the case of THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., V. K.KARTHEESWARAN AND ANOTHER reported in 2002 (2) Law Weekly 109, wherein for the boy aged about 17 years lost his left leg above the knee, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.14,87,500/-and, on appeal by the Insurance company, this Court modified the award as Rs.13,90,000/-and in paragraphs 21 and 22, it has been held as follows: "21. Ex.C10 is the certificate issued by the leading Orthopaedic Surgeon Dr.Mohandass. Though there was an attempt to fix an artificial limb even at a cost of Rs.1.25 lakhs, it was not successful. The claimant had deposed that he is not able to raise, move and stand and not able to walk without any assistance. He will not be able to travel by bus or other transport vehicles. The claimant also had deposed that he will not get married at all. This is a deprivation of marital life and his chance of getting married is totally bleak. The claimant also deposed that as a result of the head injury, he gets headache and also he loses consciousness very often. C.W.3, Dr.Thiyagarajan, had deposed that the claimant has no limb on the right side and he had suffered shoulder injury. The evidence of C.W.3 had not been challenged seriously excepting one suggestion that the 90% disability assessment is excessive, which the said Doctor had denied. 22. In the light of the said injuries and permanent disability, taking into consideration of the age, the permanent disability being 90%, the Tribunal had assessed the compensation and awarded Rs.14,87,500/-. As regards the total compensation awarded towards loss of earnings, the Tribunal, though assessed it at Rs.10 lakhs, has awarded only Rs.6 lakhs as the claimant has confined his claim only to the extent of Rs.6 lakhs under this head. It is well settled that even though a claim may be reduced in one or more heads, but it could be granted under other heads also. It is well settled that even though a claim may be reduced in one or more heads, but it could be granted under other heads also. The compensation for loss of earning power alone was arrived at Rs.6 lakhs is too meager a sum as the claimant is just 20 years on the date of the judgment and 17 years on the date of the accident, but for the accident, his average age would be more than 65 years and he would have lived for another 40 years atleast. Therefore, the loss of earning power arrived at by the Tribunal below at Rs.6 lakhs is far below." After taking into consideration the principles enunciated in the above judgment, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.5 lakhs towards permanent disability as against Rs.2,50,000/-. It is also made clear that the said compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- is comprehensive of future earning capacity as well as the future marriage prospects. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.50,000/-towards pain and sufferings. After taking into consideration the fact that the claimant lost her right leg below the knee and multiple injuries all over the body, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.15,000/-towards attendant charges, which are very reasonable and the same are confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1592/-towards transport charges (car rent) and Rs.2,419/-towards medical expenses. Ex.P5 is the car rent bill and Ex.P6 is the medical bills. It is the actual expenditure incurred by the claimant and hence, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has fixed the rate of interest at 9% p.a from the date of petition. The accident occurred on 28.09.2002. Keeping in view the prevailing rate of interest at the relevant time, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. The details of modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Permanent disability Rs. 5,00,000/- Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 15,000/- Car hire charges Rs. 1,592/- Medical expenses Rs. 2,419/- Total... Rs. 5,74,011/-Rounded off to Rs.5,75,000/-. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.5,75,000/-as against the compensation of Rs.6,24,011/- awarded by the Tribunal. 7. 5,00,000/- Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 15,000/- Car hire charges Rs. 1,592/- Medical expenses Rs. 2,419/- Total... Rs. 5,74,011/-Rounded off to Rs.5,75,000/-. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.5,75,000/-as against the compensation of Rs.6,24,011/- awarded by the Tribunal. 7. The appellant-Insurance company is directed to deposit the modified compensation of Rs.5,75,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the award amount has not been so far deposited. On such deposit, the Tribunal is directed to redeposit the same in any Nationalised Bank in a Fixed Deposit for the period till the claimant attains majority. The father of the claimant is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest thereon once in six months. 8. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.