Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company against the award dated 12.09.2003 made in MCOP No.1183 of 1999 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( Principal Subordinate Court), Cuddalore. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The first respondent/claimant met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 04.12.1999 at about 09.45 hours. The first respondent/claimant was travelling in his TVS-50 moped at the extreme left hand side of the road from Thirupanampakkam to Bahoor. At that time, the bus bearing registration No.PY-01A-7799 belonging to the second respondent, came in an opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said TVS-50 moped. Due to the said impact, the claimant thrown out of his moped and sustained multiple injuries all over his body. He claimed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation. The appellant/Insurance Company resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1.In whose negligence, the accident had occurred? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation from the appellant? If so, what is the amount?" 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 bus belonged to the second respondent and insured with the appellant/Insurance company and awarded a consolidate sum of Rs.1,45,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. Aggrieved by that award, the 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 claimant sustained only simple injuries and there is no proof to show that he had sustained 80% disability. He further contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification and that 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 had 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 counsel. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant submitted that the Tribunal had 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 counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P22 were marked. On the side of the appellant/Insurance Company, R.W.1-Padmanaban, investigator of the Insurance Company was examined and Ex.R1-xerox copy of the wound certificate was marked to support their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is the Doctor Sivasubramanian. P.W.3 is the taxi driver Venkatachalapathi. Ex.P1 is the xerox copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the xerox copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors report. Exs.P3 and P4 are O.P. Chits of claimant given by Government Hospital, Pondicherry. Ex.P5 is the card given by the Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry to the claimant. Ex.P6 is the discharge summary given by Appollo Hospital, Chennai. Ex.P7 is the C.T. scan report. Exs.P8 to P10 are the x-ray reports. Exs.P11 and P12 are the Notes from Appollo Hospital, Chennai. Ex.P13 is the Medical bills. Ex.P14 is the wireman certificate. Ex.P15 is the students admission list. Ex.P16 is the students attendance register. Exs.P17 and P18 are the xerox copies of driving licence of the claimant and the second respondent. Ex.P19 is the registration certificate of the second respondent. Ex.P20 is the Insurance policy. Ex.P21 is the disability certificate. Ex.P22 is the x-rays. 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 second respondents bus and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 55 years old. He is Proprietor of Srinivasa Electrical Works Bahoor and Thirupanampakkam and claimed that he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Due to the accident, he sustained following injuries: (i) Head injury; (ii) Injuries in wrist and legs. (iii) Multiple and grievous injuries all over the body. P.W.1-claimant has deposed that immediately after the accident, he was admitted in Government Hospital, Cuddalore and Pondicherry and later at Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry. Subsequently, he took treatment at Appollo Hospital, Chennai. Due to the accident, he sustained following injuries: (i) Head injury; (ii) Injuries in wrist and legs. (iii) Multiple and grievous injuries all over the body. P.W.1-claimant has deposed that immediately after the accident, he was admitted in Government Hospital, Cuddalore and Pondicherry and later at Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry. Subsequently, he took treatment at Appollo Hospital, Chennai. P.W.2 -the Doctor Sivasubramanian has deposed that he examined the claimant and determined the disability at 80% and issued Ex.P21 disability certificate. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company vehemently contended that the claimant was not sustained fracture and grievous injuries and hence disability fixed on the higher side. It is clear from the oral and documentary evidence and also Ex.R1-wound certificate, the injuries sustained by the claimant is simple in nature and the disability fixed by the doctor is on higher side. Therefore, it is reasonable to fix the disability at 40%. Normally, the Courts award Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. In this case, it would be reasonable to fix Rs.1000/- per percentage of disability and the award towards permanent disability works out to Rs.40,000/-. Ex.P13 is the medical bills. It is an actual expenditure incurred by the claimant. Taking into consideration of the same, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.30,000/-towards medical expenses. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards pain and suffering. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, it is reasonable to award Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards transport charges and loss of income during treatment period and extra nourishment. The claimant took treatment at Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry and also at Appollo Hospital, Chennai. Therefore, it is reasonable to award Rs.10,000/-towards transport charges, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of income during the treatment period and Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. The accident occurred on 04.12.1999. Taking into consideration the date of accident as well as the prevailing rate of interest during that period, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Permanent disabilityRs. 40,000/- Medical expensesRs. 30,000/- Extra nourishmentRs. 5,000/- Pain and sufferingsRs. 10,000/- Loss of incomeRs. 5,000/- Transport chargesRs. The details of modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Permanent disabilityRs. 40,000/- Medical expensesRs. 30,000/- Extra nourishmentRs. 5,000/- Pain and sufferingsRs. 10,000/- Loss of incomeRs. 5,000/- Transport chargesRs. 10,000/-Total...Rs.1,00,000/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-with interest at 9% per annum as against the compensation of Rs.1,45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company has submitted that the appellant has already deposited the entire award amount as per the order of this Court dated 25.02.2005 and the claimant was also permitted to withdraw 50% of the award amount by order of this Court dated 16.08.2005. Therefore, the first respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified award amount, 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 modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.