Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the insurance company against award dated 17.10.2003 made in M.C.O.P No.1311 of 2000 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principle Sub Judge), Tindivanam. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: One injured Jaffer met with motor vehicle accident on 02.05.2000 at about 12.00 A.M. The claimant was riding in a motor cycle bearing registration No.PY 01 P 1304 from Asarankuppam to Villupuram. While he was nearing Panner cotten Mill at Thiiruvannamalai main road, a mini van bearing registration No.PYT 1526 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and hit the motor cycle. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained multiple injuries with fracture and immediately he was admitted in Villupuram Government Hospital later, he was referred to Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry for better treatment. He claimed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation. The mini van was insured with the appellant-Insurance company who resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini van or not? 2. Whether the mini van involved in the accident or not? 3. What is the compensation, the claimants are entitled to?" After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini van and awarded compensation of Rs.11,21,318/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim and the details of the same are as under:- Medical expenses As per Ex.P4 and P5 (Rs.25,750+Rs.5,56,468) =Rs.5,82,218/- Transportation =Rs. 20,000/- Permanent disability 37% =Rs, 74,000/- Pain and sufferings for fracture =Rs. 35,000/- for eyes =Rs. 10,000/- Extra nourishment=Rs. 10,000/- Loss due to 20% disability (eyes) =Rs. 40,000/- Loss of income during Treatment period=Rs.3,00,000/- Future loss of income=Rs. 70,000/- Total =Rs.11,41,218/- It is seen that there is a totalling error. Instead of awarding a sum of Rs.11,41,218/-, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.11,21,218/-. Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Insurance company has filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance company vehemently contented that the Tribunal is wrong in holding that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini van. Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Insurance company has filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance company vehemently contented that the Tribunal is wrong in holding that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini van. Further, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period and a further sum of Rs.70,000/- towards future loss of income without any evidence and further contended that the Tribunal awarded excessive, exorbitant compensation and also without any basis and justification. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same should be set aside. 4. The Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation is based on valid materials and evidence. It is a question of fact and it is not a perverse order. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same should be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P18 were marked. On the side of the appellant, R.W.1 one Palaraman, who is the investigator, was examined and no documents were marked to substantiate their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. PW2 is Dr.Sekar, P.W.3 Thiru.Edwin who is the eye witness to the accident. P.W.4 is Dr.Kasinathan. Ex.P1 dated 04.12.2000 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of the motor vehicle inspector’s report, Ex.P3 dated 03.05.2000 copy of the charge-sheet, Ex.P4 and P5medical bills given by Eastcoase Hospital and Miyat Hospital, Ex.P6-taxi bill, Ex.P7 is the driving licence, Ex.P8 dated 31.05.1994 copy of sale deed, Ex.P9 dated 01.08.1991 copy of sale deed, Ex.P10 dated 02.09.1998 copy of sale deed, Ex.P11 dated 03.07.1995 copy of sale deed, Ex.P12 is the series of income tax receipts of the claimant, Ex.P13 is the copy of the degree certificate of the claimant, Ex.P14 is the copy of the co-operatil certificate, Ex.P15 dated 29.03.2003 Arva Arabic English translation centre, Ex.P16 dated 23.07.2003 disability certificate, Ex.P17-X-ray, Ex.P18 is the disability certificate were marked. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini van. It is a question of fact The finding is based on valid materials and evidence and therefore, the same is confirmed. 6. At the time of the accident, the injured was aged about 37 years. He is an agriculturist and also doing business and he is translator working at Soudi Arabia. He claimed that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Further, P.W.1 in his evidence has stated that the driver of the mini van caused the accident and the driver of the mini van also charge-sheeted by Villupuram Taluk Police station in Cr.No.1165/2000 under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC 7. After the accident, he was admitted in Government Hospital, Villupuram, later, he was referred to private hospital at Chennai. Due to the accident, he sustained multiples injuries with fracture of right leg, right eye, and head injury and injuries all over the body. Further, in his evidence, it is stated that he was in the hospital from 02.05.2000 to 15.06.2000, for a period of 1½ months. Ex.P4 and P5 are the medical bills given by Eastcoase Hospital and Miyat Hospital. There is no dispute that the claimant submitted 427 bills relating to medical expenses of Rs.4,80,000/-. Ex.P4 is the medical bills for a sum of Rs.25,750/-. After taking into consideration of Ex.P4 and P5, it is reasonable to award only a sum of Rs.5,05,750/-(Rs.25,750+4,80,000) towards medical expenses as against Rs.5,56,468/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- for transport charges. Ex.P6 is the Taxi receipt, in which, he claimed that he went to the hospital by Taxi. There is no dispute that he was taken treatment in Pondicherry and Chennai and also number of times he visited the hospital. After taking into consideration of the same, the award of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and the same is confirmed. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.74,000/- for 37% permanent disability and a further sum of Rs.40,000/- towards 20% disability (eyes) totalling Rs.1,14,000/-(Rs.74,000+Rs.20,000). P.W.2 doctor in his evidence has stated that due to the accident, the claimant sustained multiples injuries with fracture of right leg, right eye, and head injury and injuries all over the body. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.74,000/- for 37% permanent disability and a further sum of Rs.40,000/- towards 20% disability (eyes) totalling Rs.1,14,000/-(Rs.74,000+Rs.20,000). P.W.2 doctor in his evidence has stated that due to the accident, the claimant sustained multiples injuries with fracture of right leg, right eye, and head injury and injuries all over the body. He determined the disability at 37%. Ex.P16 is the disability certificate. P.W.4 Dr.Kasinathan is an eye-specialist. He examined the claimant and determined the disability at 30%. In his evidence, it is stated that the claimant’s eye was badly affected. Ex.P18 is the disability certificate given by him. After considering the oral evidence of P.W.4 doctor, the Tribunal fixed the disability at 20%. After taking into consideration of the above, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss due to disability as against Rs.1,14,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards pain and suffering. According to the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company the said amount is excessive. Therefore, after taking into consideration of the nature of injury and the period of treatment, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.35,000/- as against Rs.45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000 towards extra-nourishment. He was taken treatment for a period of two years. After taking into consideration of the nature of injury and the period of treatment, the Tribunal correctly awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- which is reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for loss of income during treatment and a further sum of Rs.70,000/- for future loss of income. The Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that there is no doctor evidence that the disability affects the earning capacity of the injured in future. There is no dispute that he was taken treatment for two years. After taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidence of P.W.2 doctor, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.75,000/-as against Rs.3,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards loss of amenities. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.4,250/-under that head. The Tribunal awarded interest @ 9%. The Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards loss of amenities. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.4,250/-under that head. The Tribunal awarded interest @ 9%. After taking into consideration of the date of accident, date of award and prevailing rate of interest during that period, the interest rate awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The modified amount of the compensation are as under: Medical expenses= Rs.5,05,750/- Transport charges= Rs. 20,000/- Loss due to disability= Rs.1,00,000/- Pain and suffering= Rs. 35,000/- Extra nourishment= Rs. 10,000/- Loss of income during treatment period= Rs. 75,000/- Loss of amenities= Rs. 4,250/- Total = Rs.7,50,000/- 7. In the result, the claimants are entitled to a modified compensation of Rs.7,50,000/-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim as against Rs.11,41,218/-awarded by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the entire award amount has already been deposited by the Court order dated 18.10.2004 and the claimants were also permitted to withdraw 50% of the award amount. Under these circumstances, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the modified compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum, less the amount 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 modifications, the appeal is disposed of. No costs.