Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant - Insurance Company against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District cum Sessions Court (Fast Track Court-4), Chennai in M C O P No.4520 of 1999 dated 12.03.2003. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The injured one Raman, met with motor accident on 23.12.1997 at about 1.30 p.m. The said injured was riding the Scooter bearing Registration No.TSA 173 on LB Road from North to south direction. At that time, an Auto rickshaw bearing Registration No.TN 09 X 6483 came in a rash and negligent manner, in high speed and hit the Scooter belonging to the second respondent. As a result, the injured sustained fracture and grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately he was admitted in Isabella Hospital, Chennai. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. The said Auto Rickshaw was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company, who resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- “In whose negligence accident occurred? Whether the claimant is entitled to the compensation? If so how much?” After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto Rickshaw and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Medical Bills-Rs.1,00,000/- Pain and suffering-Rs. 20,000/- Disability-Rs. 50,000/- Loss of earning during treatment period-Rs. 20,000/- Loss of earning power-Rs. 20,000/- Total- Rs.2,10,000/- 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 submitted that the Tribunal is wrong in holding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto Rickshaw and also there is no concrete evidence available to state that the said auto rickshaw involved in the accident and ultimately, submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and without basis and justification. Further, he vehemently contended that the Tribunal is wrong in stating that if the award amount was not deposited, the claimant is entitled to compensation with interest at 12% p.a. 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 respondents/claimants 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 and perused the materials available on record. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P.1 to P14 were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is one Dr. Thiagarajan. P.W.3-Kulanthaivelu is one eye witness of the accident. Ex.P.1 is the discharge summary. Ex.P.2 is the Medical bills of the Isabella Hospital. Ex.P.3 is the Medical Bills. Ex.P.4 is the Medical bills of the Isabella Hospital. Ex.P5 is the Medical record of the Subetha Hospital. Ex.P.6 is the Medical Bill of the Subetha Hospital. Ex.P7 is the Scan report. Ex.P8 is the M.R. Bills. Ex.P9 is the Scan Films. Ex.P10 is the Bills of Physiotherapy. Ex.P11 is the First Information Report. Ex.P12 is the Charge sheet. Ex.P13 is the Disability Certificate. Ex.P14 is the X-ray. On the side of the appellant/Insurance Company, no one was examined and no document was marked. 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 Auto Rickshaw and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. At the time of accident, the injured/claimant was aged about 45 years. He engaged in Hardware business and was earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. P.W.1 -the claimant, in his evidence, has stated that the driver of the Auto Rickshaw caused the accident and a case has been registered against him in Cr.No.89/AM1/98 by J5-Sastry Nagar, Adyar Besant Nagar Range, Chennai-20. The claimant sustained fracture of left leg; fracture of Zygoma; fracture of Wall of Sinus and Arch fracture. P.W.1 -the claimant, in his evidence, has stated that the driver of the Auto Rickshaw caused the accident and a case has been registered against him in Cr.No.89/AM1/98 by J5-Sastry Nagar, Adyar Besant Nagar Range, Chennai-20. The claimant sustained fracture of left leg; fracture of Zygoma; fracture of Wall of Sinus and Arch fracture. He further deposed that he took treatment in Isabel Hospital, Chennai, for a period of one month and later in Subetha Hospital for a period of 10 days as inpatient and marked Ex.P.1 discharge summary to prove the evidence. P.W.2 is the Doctor, who examined the injured has determined the disability at 55% and issued Ex.P13-Disability Certificate. There is no dispute regarding the disability. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-towards loss of income due to 55% disability and after awarding the said sum, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal ought not to have awarded a further sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of income as already awarded Rs.50,000/- towards permanent disability. Further, P.W.2 - Doctor, who examined the injured, deposed that due to fracture of both legs, the injured is unable to bend his left leg and also unable to walk without assistance, therefore, the disability is fixed at 35% and further there is a fracture of Zygoma and fracture of wall of sinus and Arch fracture and hence he fixed the disability at 20% and total disability is 55%. Due to the fracture, he is getting head ache often and also unable to work as before. Normally, the Courts award Rs.1,000/-to Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. After considering the fractures sustained and also evidence of PW2, it is reasonable to award Rs.1,200/-per percentage of disability. If Rs.1,300/-is awarded per percentage, for 55% disability the amount works at to Rs.71,500/- (Rs.1,300 x 55) as against a sum of Rs.50,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded further sum of Rs.20,000/-towards loss of earning capacity. As this Court awards Rs.71,500/- towards 55% permanent disability, the amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded towards loss of earning is unwarranted and the same is deleted. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards pain and suffering. After taking into consideration the fractures sustained by the claimant, the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. As this Court awards Rs.71,500/- towards 55% permanent disability, the amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded towards loss of earning is unwarranted and the same is deleted. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards pain and suffering. After taking into consideration the fractures sustained by the claimant, the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards Medical Bills. Exs.P2 to 4 are the Medical Bills given by the Isabella Hospital. Ex.P6 is the Medical Bills given by Subetha Hospital and Ex.P10 is Physiotherapy Bills. Ex.P8 is MR bills. It is an actual expenditure incurred by the claimant. Therefore, the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of income during the treatment period. The claimant was admitted in the hospital from 23.12.1997 to 16.02.1998. Ex.P1 -Discharge summary clearly stated that he was taking treatment during that period in two hospitals. Therefore, the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The tribunal awarded interest at 9% p.a. The accident occurred on 23.12.1997. Considering the prevailing rate of interest during that period, the interest awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable, therefore, the same is confirmed. The other contention raised by the counsel is that the Tribunal held that in case the amount was not deposited within the stipulated time, the Insurance Company would be liable to pay a compensation with interest at 12% p.a. According to him, the said default clause is unwarranted. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances, the default clause condition is unwarranted and the same is deleted. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Medical Bills-Rs.1,00,000/- Pain and Suffering-Rs. 20,000/- Loss due to 55% disability-Rs. 71,500/- Loss of earning during the treatment period-Rs. 20,000/- Total-Rs.2,11,500/- Rounded off to Rs.2,10,000/- Award amount is confirmed but under different heads. 7. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company that the appellant has deposited 50% of the award amount, as per the order of this Court dated 13.10.2004 and the remaining 50% of the award amount was ordered to be deposited as per order of this Court dated 16.04.2005. 7. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company that the appellant has deposited 50% of the award amount, as per the order of this Court dated 13.10.2004 and the remaining 50% of the award amount was ordered to be deposited as per order of this Court dated 16.04.2005. Out of the said amounts, the claimant was permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited as per order dated 16.04.2005. In these circumstances, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the balance amount, less the amount already withdrawn, on making proper application. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.