Judgment :- The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/second respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 30.04.2003, made in M.C.O.P.No.151 of 1992, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principle Sub Court, Tindivanam, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/second respondent, The United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Tiruvannamalai, has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the said award and decree. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner is a 10th Standard student, aged about 15 years and the first son of his family. On 13.01.1992, at about 17.30 hrs, when the petitioner was coming from National Elementary School Street towards Rajaji Street, Tindivanam, on the left side of the road and when he was near Shanthi Bus Shed, the first respondents bus bearing registration No.TMM 7585, coming from Gingee to Tindivanam and driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the petitioner. Due to the accident, the petitioner sustained fracture in his right thigh, right knee, right fore head and on other parts of his body. 4. As such, the first respondent, the owner of the said bus and the second respondent, the insurer of the said bus are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner had initially claimed a compensation of Rs.70,000/-, but subsequently the claim has been amended and he has sought a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- together with interest and costs, under Section 166 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. Regarding the said accident, a criminal case has been registered by the Tindivanam Police Station as Crime No.22/92 under Sections 279 and 338 of I.P.C. 6. The first respondent did not entered appearance, in spite of summons issued to him and so he was exparte by the Tribunal. 7. The second respondent, in his Counter has resisted the claim stating that the driver of the first respondents bus was not negligent, as alleged in the claim and that he was not responsible for the accident. The first respondent did not entered appearance, in spite of summons issued to him and so he was exparte by the Tribunal. 7. The second respondent, in his Counter has resisted the claim stating that the driver of the first respondents bus was not negligent, as alleged in the claim and that he was not responsible for the accident. It has been stated that the bus driver had driven the bus slowly and carefully and that it was the negligence of the petitioner, who had crossed the road suddenly, which had been caused for the accident. It has been submitted that the petitioner has to prove that the driver of the said bus had a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It has also been stated that the claim of the petitioner is excessive. 8. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely: (i) Was the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondents bus? (ii) What is the quantum of compensation, which the petitioner is entitled to get? 9. On the petitioners side, two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and seven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7. On the respondents side, no witnesses were examined and one document was marked as Ex.R1. The Tribunal heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for their respective parties. 10. Ex.P1 is the copy of FIR, which has been prepared on the basis of a complaint registered at Tindivanam Police Station by one Aamir Jhan and on a scrutiny of this, it is evident that a criminal case has been filed by the Tindivanam Police as against the driver of the said bus. Ex.P2 is the copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report. Ex.R1 is the copy of the Insurance Policy, wherein it has been stated that the said bus was insured with the second respondent. The petitioners next best friend was examined as PW1 before the Tribunal. The PW1, in his evidence has deposed that the accident was caused only due to the negligence of the driver of the first respondents bus. Though the respondents have resisted this claim, they have not countered this claim either through examination of witnesses or advancing contra evidence to establish their contentions. The PW1, in his evidence has deposed that the accident was caused only due to the negligence of the driver of the first respondents bus. Though the respondents have resisted this claim, they have not countered this claim either through examination of witnesses or advancing contra evidence to establish their contentions. As such, the Tribunal, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence given on the side of the petitioners held that the second respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 11. On behalf of the petitioner, his father had given evidence as PW1. The PW1, in his evidence has adduced that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner had taken treatment at Tindivanam Government Hospital and that the injuries sustained by the petitioner was grievous in nature. In support of this evidence, he had marked Ex.P3, the Discharge Summary issued by the said hospital. 12. One Dr.K.Ramanujam, who had medically examined the petitioner, was examined as PW2. The PW2, in his evidence had deposed that he had examined the petitioner on 14.02.2003, and had stated that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are grievous in nature and in support of this he had marked Ex.P4, the Disability Certificate issued by him and Exs.P5, P6 and P7, the Xrays. The PW2, in his evidence has stated that he had worked as a Doctor at Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry and that after his retirement, he had started a private clinic and that on 14.02.2003, he had examined the petitioner. He had found that a bone in his right leg had been fractured in the middle. On examination of medical records and Xrays, he had stated that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries and that the right leg is 3% longer than his left leg and he had certified that the disability sustained by the petitioner as 39% and had marked Ex.P5, the Disability Certificate and Ex.P6, the Xrays taken earlier and Ex.P7, the Xrays taken at Rajagopal Hospital, Tindivanam, on his advise. 13. On cross-examination, the Doctor had stated that the disability and grievous injury are both different in nature and that he had examined the petitioner only on 14.02.2003, whereas the accident had taken place on 13.01.1992. He had admitted that in the interim period, the nature of treatment, which the petitioner took was not known to him. 13. On cross-examination, the Doctor had stated that the disability and grievous injury are both different in nature and that he had examined the petitioner only on 14.02.2003, whereas the accident had taken place on 13.01.1992. He had admitted that in the interim period, the nature of treatment, which the petitioner took was not known to him. He has also admitted that the disability could have been caused due to some other reason other than that of the said accident. He has further stated that he had not checked the copy of accident register to arrive at the disability of 39%, which he had certified. 14. As such, the Tribunal, on considering the evidence given by witnesses on the petitioners side and on scrutiny of documentary evidence furnished in support of oral evidence, were of the view that due to the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident, he had suffered disability and due to this disability, his education at School had been affected and that his future life has also been affected. The Tribunal, on considering the age of the petitioner, educational requirements, nature of injuries, disability sustained and future prospects, awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- to the petitioner and directed the second respondent to pay the above said award 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, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.151 of 1992, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principle Sub Court, Tindivanam. Further, after such deposit was made, the award was to be invested, as fixed deposit, in a nationalised bank and the petitioner was permitted to withdraw interest on such deposit, directly from the bank, once in six months. The excess Court fee paid by the petitioner was to be refunded to him. The Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.7,200/-. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in his appeal has contended that the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tindivanam, had failed to consider the question of negligence in proper perspective and that the claimant/first respondent, by his negligence had contributed to the accident. The Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.7,200/-. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in his appeal has contended that the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tindivanam, had failed to consider the question of negligence in proper perspective and that the claimant/first respondent, by his negligence had contributed to the accident. It has been contended that the learned Judge failed to note that the petitioner was only treated as an outpatient at Government Hospital, Tindivanam, which only goes to show that the injuries sustained by him was simple in nature. Further, it has been pointed out that the learned Judge failed to note that in Ex.P3, the Wound Certificate, only one injury is referred to as grievous and that this by itself does not lead to any conclusion that the injured has suffered any permanent disability. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the evidence of PW2 is artificial and unbelievable as he had examined the claimant only after 11 years after the accident and as such the Disability Certificate issued by him as Ex.P4 has no sanctity. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant had further contended that the original claim had been only Rs.70,000/-and that the petition was amended after eight years and subsequently, an enhanced claim of Rs.4,00,000/-was sought without any justification. Further, it has been contended that the evidence given by PW2 should be rejected, especially the certification of disability of petitioner as 39%, as he had admitted that all the injuries have healed. Further, it has been contended that as no evidence was produced to show that the petitioner was a student and studying, the observation of the learned Judge that the studies and future of the claimant has been affected was unwarranted and was not based on any material facts. 17. As such, it has been prayed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant to set aside the lump sum award of Rs.2,10,000/-granted by the Tribunal as it was awarded without any discussion or reasoning. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the claimants original was Rs.70,000/-and that as an after thought a revised claim of Rs.4,00,000/- was put in, after a period of eight years and that too without any documentary evidence. 19. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the claimants original was Rs.70,000/-and that as an after thought a revised claim of Rs.4,00,000/- was put in, after a period of eight years and that too without any documentary evidence. 19. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent argued that the claimant was a school going boy and that at the time of accident, he was aged about 15 years. Due to the accident, the claimant is unable to continue his studies. Injuries were sustained by the claimant on his right side thigh, right hand elbow and right side of his forehead and these are grievous in nature. Further, as per the Doctors evidence, one of the claimants leg is shorter than the other, due to the accident. The Doctor, after examining the injured person had certified a disability of 39%. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent argued that he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Tindivanam, for preliminary under the further treatment was taken by him at Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry. Due to the accident, the future career of the young boy has been affected. The petitioner has sustained physical deformity and this may affect his marriage prospects. The Tribunals award of Rs.2,10,000/-with 9% interest is also on the lower side. Hence, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has prayed not to scale down the award granted by the Tribunal. 20. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence of the claimants side, arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable, but the award granted as one lump sum is not pertinent. Hence, this Court, for clarity, splits the quantum of award granted by the Tribunal and restructures the award under the below mentioned heads: 1. For 39% disability, this Court awarded a compensation of Rs.78,000/- (taking into account of Rs.2,000/- for 1% disability as the boys age was only 15 years at the time of accident). 2. For pain and suffering, undergone by the claimant, this Court awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 3. For medical expenses, even though there is no documentary evidence, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, this Court awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 4. For transport expenses, this Court awarded a compensation of Rs.7,000/-. 5. 2. For pain and suffering, undergone by the claimant, this Court awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 3. For medical expenses, even though there is no documentary evidence, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, this Court awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 4. For transport expenses, this Court awarded a compensation of Rs.7,000/-. 5. For nutrition, this Court awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 6. For permanent distress caused to the claimant due to the deformity in his leg ie. shortening of one leg, this Court awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 7. For loss of pleasures of life, ie. the restricted movement of the claimant due to the shortening of his leg and discomfort experienced due to this handicap and consequent reduction of marriage prospects, this Court awarded a compensation of Rs.30,000/-. In total, this Court awarded a compensation of Rs.2,10,000/-to the petitioner together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment, as this is found to be equitable and fair in the circumstances of the case. 21. This Court imposed a condition on the appellant/the United India Insurance Co., Ltd., to deposit the entire compensation amount including the interest and costs, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.151 of 1992, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principle Sub Court, Tindivanam. 22. As the accident happened in the year 1992, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.151 of 1992, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principle Sub Court, Tindivanam, after filing necessary payment out application, in accordance with law. 23. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Award and Decree, dated 30.04.2003, made in M.C.O.P.No.151 of 1992, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principle Sub Court, Tindivanam, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There is not order as to costs.