Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance company against the award and decree dated 09.01.2002, made in M.C.O.P.No.273 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional District Court-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Krishnagiri. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The first respondent/claimant met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 16.08.2000, at about 12.00 noon. The first respondent/claimant was travelling in a Tractor bearing registration No.TND29 D0838 belonging to the second respondent and insured with the appellant Insurance Company, loaded with Coconut Tree beams from Vedapatti to Royakottai. The Tractor was driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner and also at high speed without observing traffic rules. Due to which, the driver lost his control and hit against the Coconut Tree. Due to the said impact, the right hand of the injured was caught between the beams and the middle and index fingers were crushed. Immediately, he was admitted in St.Johns Medical College Hospital, Bangalore. He claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. The appellant Insurance Company, resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1.Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to the accident occurred on rash and negligent driving of the driver of the second respondents Tractor? 2. Whether the driver of the Tractor possessed valid driving licence at the time of the accident? 3. What is the quantum of compensation, the petitioner is 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 Tractor and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,90,000/-as consolidated award amount, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition. Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance company contended that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner on the ground that no policy was taken for the persons, travelled in the Tractor. It is not in dispute that the injured was travelling in the mudguard of the Tractor. Only the driver of the Tractor was alone insured. Therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. The second respondent/owner of the Tractor alone is liable to pay compensation. It is not in dispute that the injured was travelling in the mudguard of the Tractor. Only the driver of the Tractor was alone insured. Therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. The second respondent/owner of the Tractor alone is liable to pay compensation. It is also further contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and without basis and justification. The Tribunal ought not to have awarded a consolidated compensation of Rs.1,90,000/-. 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 considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to a right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable consolidated compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel and perused the materials available on record. On the side of the first respondent/claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant. PW2 is Doctor Ashok Kumar. Ex.A1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.A2 is the copy of the Wound Certificate. Ex.A3 is the copy of the Insurance Policy. Ex.A4 is the medical bills and Ex.A5 is the Disability Certificate. On the side of the appellant-Insurance Company one Rathinavel, Administrative Officer, was examined as R.W.1 and copy of the policy was marked as Ex.R1. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. A perusal of Ex.R1 would show that the driver of the Tractor alone is covered under the policy and no other person is covered under the policy. It is seen from the records that the said injured/claimant travelled in the Trailer attached to the Tractor. Admittedly, the Trailer was not insured and only the Tractor was insured. It is well settled principle of law that if the Trailer attached with the Tractor is not insured with the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Admittedly, the Trailer was not insured and only the Tractor was insured. It is well settled principle of law that if the Trailer attached with the Tractor is not insured with the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, whereas the owner of the Tractor is liable to pay compensation. The finding of the Tribunal that the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation is set aside and hence the liability to pay compensation is fastened on the owner of the Tractor. 7. Now we will consider the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal awarded a consolidated compensation amount of Rs.1,90,000/-with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. There is no dispute that the right hand, middle and index fingers were amputed. PW1-injured, in his evidence, stated that both the fingers were amputed and due to the same he is unable to do any work as before. He is an agricultural coolie. The age of the injured was 27 years old at the time of accident. He was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/-per month. Further, he stated that the driver of the Tractor only caused the accident. Ex.A2 is the Wound Certificate. PW2 is Doctor, who examined the injured, has determined the disability at 40%. Ex.A5 is the Disability Certificate. PW2, in his evidence, has stated that the middle and index fingers were amputed and due to the same, the claimant is unable to lift any heavy objects. In the Wound Certificate, it is stated that the injured suffered the following injuries: "1.Lacerated wound-deformity swelling right index finger, X-ray fracture of proximal phalanx of index finger. 2.Laceerated wound-deformity of right middle finger, X-ray fracture of proximal phainx of middle finger. 3. Amputation of index finger and middle finger done." After taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded a consolidated compensation amount of Rs.1,90,000/-with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. There is no dispute that the Doctor determined the disability at 40%. Normally, the Courts award Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/-per percentage of disability. After taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, it is reasonable to award Rs.2,000/- for each percentage. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rs.2,000/- X 40%) towards 40% permanent disability. There is no dispute that the Doctor determined the disability at 40%. Normally, the Courts award Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/-per percentage of disability. After taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, it is reasonable to award Rs.2,000/- for each percentage. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rs.2,000/- X 40%) towards 40% permanent disability. After taking into consideration of the nature of injury, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards pain and suffering. The injured took treatment in St.Johns Medical College Hospital, Bangalore, where he undergone surgery. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses. Further, he spent some amount towards transport charges. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.3,000/-towards transport. After taking into consideration of the nature of injuries and treatment, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards extra nourishment. The age of the injured was 27 years old at the time of accident. The injured is an agricultural coolie. He lost his right hand, middle and index fingers and the 40% disability would definitely affect the future earning capacity of the claimant. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards future loss of income and it is also reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards marriage prospects. The accident occurred on 16.08.2000. Keeping in view the prevailing rate of interest during that period is 9% the same is confirmed. The details of modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- 40% disability Rs. 80,000/- Pain and sufferingRs. 15,000/- Extra nourishmentRs. 5,000/- Transport chargesRs. 3,000/- Medical expensesRs. 5,000/- Future loss of incomeRs. 25,000/- Future marriage prospectsRs. 10,000/- Total...Rs.1,43,000/- Therefore, the first respondent/claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.1,43,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a as against the consolidated compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance company has submitted that already entire award amount has been deposited and the first respondent/claimant is also permitted to withdraw 50% of the said award amount. Under these circumstances, the first respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified compensation amount of Rs.1,43,000/-with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, less the amount already withdrawn on making proper application. The appellant-Insurance Company is also permitted to withdraw the balance compensation amount on making proper application. Under these circumstances, the first respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified compensation amount of Rs.1,43,000/-with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, less the amount already withdrawn on making proper application. The appellant-Insurance Company is also permitted to withdraw the balance compensation amount on making proper application. Further, liberty is given to the appellant-Insurance Company to proceed against the owner of the Tractor for recovery of award amount deposited in same proceedings in accordance with law. 9. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.