Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance company against the award dated 04.02.2005 made in MCOP No.493 of 2003 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-ordinate Judge), Cuddalore. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The first respondent/injured one Rangarayalu met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 08.10.2002 at about 06.30 a.m. The said injured and his son were proceeding from east to west road in Ezhumedu village. When they are nearing Kannabiran Motor Shed, a tractor bearing Regn.No.TN-31-5530 belonging to the second respondent came from east to west in a rash and negligent manner and also with high speed and hit the injured. Due to the same, the injured sustained fracture on his left leg and also multiple injuries all over the body. The injured was immediately admitted in the Government Hospital, Cuddalore for treatment. He claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation before the Tribunal. The said tractor 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 driver of the tractor owned by the 1st respondent/owner? 2. Whether the tractor driver had sufficient driving licence at the time of accident or not? 3. Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount?" After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor, who has valid driving licence and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,88,910/- with interest of 9% p.a. The details of the compensation are as follows:- Pain and sufferings Rs. 10,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 3,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 7,000/- Medical Expenses Rs. 907/-loss of income during the treatment period (6 months)Rs. 18,000/- Loss due to Permanent disability Rs. 75,000/- Loss of future earning capacity Rs. 75,000/- Total...Rs. 1,88,907/- Rounded to Rs. 1,88,910/- Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-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 amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification. 75,000/- Total...Rs. 1,88,907/- Rounded to Rs. 1,88,910/- Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-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 amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification. He further submitted that when the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.75,000/-towards 40% disability, it ought not to have awarded further award of Rs.75,000/-towards loss of earning capacity, when there is no proof available in the record. He further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the 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 learned counsel. Perused the materials available on record. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. On the side of the appellant-Insurance company no one was examined and no document was marked to support their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. PW2 is the Doctor Sivasubramanian. Ex.P1 is the xerox copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the xerox copy Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report Ex.P3 is the xerox copy of the Accident Register. Ex.P4 is the Admission Chit Ex.P5 is the xerox copy of the policy. Ex.P6 is the xerox copy of the driving licence. Ex.P7 is the Medical Bills Ex.P8 is the disability certificate issued by the doctor to the claimant. Ex.P9 is X-ray. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, who has valid driving licence and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 48 years. He is an agricultural worker and earning Rs.4000/- per month. 6. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 48 years. He is an agricultural worker and earning Rs.4000/- per month. PW1-the claimant, in his evidence has stated that the accident happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and he had sustained grievous injuries on his left thigh, left leg, left chest and all over the body. The driver was also charge sheeted by the Nellikuppam Police in Cr.No.993 of 2002 under Section 279, 337, 338 I.P.C. Immediately after the accident he was taken to the Government Hospital, Cuddalore. He was admitted in hospital as in patient and taken treatment for 68 days from 8.10.2002 to 6.12.2002. Ex.P4 is the admission chit. Ex.P3 is the accident register which also corroborated the same. After discharged from the Cuddalore Government Hospital, he was admitted in Fathima Hospital, Pondicherry and also incurred expenses of Rs.906.85 towards medical bills. Ex.P.7 is the series of medical bills. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in awrding a sum of Rs.907/- towards medical expenses and the same is confirmed. P.W.2 doctor, who examined the injured, had determined the disability at 40%. Ex.A8 is Disability Certificate. Ex.P9 is X-ray. P.W.2 doctor in his evidence has stated that there is a deep wound on the left leg and also the movement of left knee was restricted to 60%. Due to the same he could not bend his left leg, kneel down and sit on the floor and he cannot ride any vehicle. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/-towards pain and sufferings which is very low. The claimant was taken treatment for the period of 68 days in Government Hospital, Cuddalore and thereafter in a Private Nursing Home, Pondicherry. Therefore, it is reasonable to award Rs.20,000/-towards pain and sufferings as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/-towards extra nourishment. Considering the fact that the injured was in hospital for a period of 68 days, he would have spent for extra nourishment during that period. Considering the same, it would be reasonable to award Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment as against Rs.3,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,000/- towards attendant charges, which is reasonable and the same is confirmed. Considering the fact that the injured was in hospital for a period of 68 days, he would have spent for extra nourishment during that period. Considering the same, it would be reasonable to award Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment as against Rs.3,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,000/- towards attendant charges, which is reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.18,000/-towards loss of income during the treatment period. If he had not met with accident, he would have earned atleast Rs.3,000/- per month. Considering the same, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.18,000/-towards loss of income during treatment period of 6 months, which is also reasonable and the same is also confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.75,000/- towards permanent disability and a further sum of Rs.75,000/-towards loss of earning capacity. The Full Bench of this Court in Cholan Roadways Vs. Ahmed Thambi, 2006 (4) CTC 433 , held that whenever compensation towards permanent disability is awarded, further amount towards loss of earning capacity should not be awarded. Applying the principle enunciated in the above Full Bench decision of this Court, the award of the Tribunal in respect of loss of earning capacity is unwarranted and therefore the same is deleted. Normally the Courts award Rs.1,000/- to 2000/-per percentage of disability. Considering the nature of the injuries, it is reasonable to award Rs.2000/-per percentage of disability. As per Ex.P8 the disability is assessed at 40%. If Rs.2000/-per percentage of disability is awarded, the award amount works out to Rs.80,000/-(Rs.2000/- x 40%) as against Rs.75,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards transport charges. He was in the hospitals at Cuddalore as well as Pondicherry for more than 68 days. Hence it is reasonable to award Rs.4,000/- towards transport charges. The Tribunal has not also awarded any amount towards loss of amenities and it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.7,500/-towards Loss of Amenities. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9% p.a. As per the prevailing rate of interest during that period, date of award, the 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:- Medical Expenses Rs. 907/- Pain and sufferings Rs. 20,000/- Extra Nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Attendant Charges Rs. 7,000/- Loss of income during treatment period (6 months)Rs. 18,000/- 40% Permanent disability Rs. The details of modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Medical Expenses Rs. 907/- Pain and sufferings Rs. 20,000/- Extra Nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Attendant Charges Rs. 7,000/- Loss of income during treatment period (6 months)Rs. 18,000/- 40% Permanent disability Rs. 80,000/- Transport charges Rs. 4,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 5,000/- Total...Rs.1,39,907/- Rounded to Rs.1,40,000/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.1,40,000/-as against the compensation of Rs.1,88,910/- awarded by the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance company has submitted that already the entire award amount has been deposited as per the order of this Court dated 5.9.2005 and the claimant was also permitted to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount by order of this Court dated 25.07.2006. Under this circumstance, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified award amount of Rs.1,40,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting 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.