Judgment :- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/second respondent, against the Award and Decree, dated 21.12.2006, made in M.C.O.P.No.1476 of 2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri District, Krishnagiri (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.1), awarding a compensation of Rs.2,48,641/- 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. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree passed by the Tribunal, the appellant/second respondent, the Branch Manager,Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore, has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 3. The short facts of the claim case is as follows: On 14.06.2001, at about 5.45 p.m, when the petitioner was driving the ambassador car bearing registration No.TNG4977, from west to east, slowly and carefully, on the extreme left side of the Hebbal ring road in the double road, Bangalore and when the car was in front of BWSSB office, the lorry bearing registration No.MYT4247, belonging to the first respondent and driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, came from west to east, in the one way road, in the wrong direction and was swerved towards north on the junction road, and dashed against the car with great impact. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and was immediately admitted at Manipal hospital as inpatient. Though medical treatment and several operations were done to the petitioner by expert doctors, the petitioner is not able to walk or squat as he used to do before the accident and so the petitioner has sustained permanent disability. 4. The petitioner was aged 40 years at the time of accident and he was the proprietor of Mercury Travels, Pradeep Lamp Components, Pradeep Hot Chips Centre and an Agriculturist. He was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-per month. Due to the permanent disability sustained by him, the petitioner is not able to look after any of the above said business. His business has been completely wound up and the whole future earning of the petitioner has been completely affected. 5. He was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-per month. Due to the permanent disability sustained by him, the petitioner is not able to look after any of the above said business. His business has been completely wound up and the whole future earning of the petitioner has been completely affected. 5. As the accident has been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Lorry, the first respondent, being the owner of the Lorry bearing registration No.MYT4247 and the second respondent, as it insures, are both liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-from the Respondents, together with interest at the rate of 14% per annum from the date of accident till date of payment, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. Regarding the accident, a Criminal case has been registered at Hebbal Police Station in Crime no.146 of 2001 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. 7. The second respondent, in his counter, has resisted the claim stating that the said lorry bearing registration No. MYT4247 had not been insured with them at the time of accident and that the driver of the lorry did not have valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. 8. The second respondent has also devised the manner of accident as alleged in the claim. The second respondent has submitted that the driver of the lorry had driven the lorry slowly and carefully, and when it was nearing the alleged place of accident, the car which had been driven by the petitioner in the wrong direction, dashed against the lorry and caused the accident. It was submitted that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the ambassador car by the petitioner. 9. It was also submitted that as the owner and Insurance Company of the said car has not been added as a necessary party in the said case, the claim is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The second respondent has also not admitted the averments in the claim regarding the age, income and occupation of the petitioner as well as the injuries and disability caused to the petitioner. It was also submitted that the claim was excessive and second respondent has prayed for dismissal of the claim as against him, with costs. 10. The 1st respondent, did not enter appearance and was set ex-parte. It was also submitted that the claim was excessive and second respondent has prayed for dismissal of the claim as against him, with costs. 10. The 1st respondent, did not enter appearance and was set ex-parte. 11. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely: 1. Who is responsible for the accident? 2. Is the petitioner entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation which he is entitled to get? 12. The petitioner was examined as PW1 before the Tribunal. The PW1 in his evidence has stated that on 14.06.2001, at about 5.45 p.m. in Bangalore, when he was travelling in the ambassador car on the Hebbal ring road and nearing BWSSP office, the first respondents lorry bearing registration No.MYT4247, which was driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, had dashed against his car and caused the accident. In support of his evidence, he has marked EXP1, the F.I.R. On scrutiny of the F.I.R, it is seen that the contentions of the petitioner regarding the manner of accident is true. On the respondents side, no and contra evidence has been submitted either by way of examination of witnesses or documentary evidence, to refute the evidence of the petitioner. As such, the Tribunal held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondents Lorry. 13. It has been stated by the petitioners side that the Lorry bearing registration No.MYT4247 was owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent at the time of accident. But the second respondent has contended that the Lorry has been sold by one Muniappan to the present owner, Smt.Jayaamma, the first respondent herein and that as the said transfer of ownership has not been intimated to them, they are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. It is seen from documentary Exhibit marked as P8, that the said Lorry has been covered by a policy of insurance under the second respondents company and was valid for a period from 07.08.2000 to 06.08.2001. As the accident had occurred on 14.06.2001, and as the owner of the lorry had been marked as S.S.Muniappan in the claim, it is evident that the said lorry was covered under the policy of Insurance with the second respondent Insurance Company. As the accident had occurred on 14.06.2001, and as the owner of the lorry had been marked as S.S.Muniappan in the claim, it is evident that the said lorry was covered under the policy of Insurance with the second respondent Insurance Company. As such the Tribunal were not inclined to accept the contention of the second respondent, that they cannot be held liable to pay compensation to the petitioner merely because the details regarding the transfer of ownership of Lorry has not been intimated to them. 14. In support of their contention with regard to this aspect of the case, a case law in "......2005(2) TAC.956, A.P........" has been cited on the part of the respondents side, the relevant head line notes of which is as follows: "..... (i) Motor Insurance – Transfer of vehicle – Liability of Insurance company – Deemed transfer including transfer of rights and liabilities of certificate of insurance issued Transfer covers, transfers with all obligations – Transferee owner steps into shoes of transferor owner – on date of transfer in favour of another person, Liability of insurance company under policy would not get obliterated a superseded – Transferee owner alone would and should be fastened with liability and same would get extended to Insurance Company also since it is the vehicle that was actually insured but not the person a owner of vehicle..." 15. As such the Tribunal, considering that the first respondent was the owner of the above said lorry, at the time of accident and that the second respondent was the insurer of the said lorry, held that both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 16. The petitioner has stated that due to the accident, he had sustained fractures in his right leg and injuries on various other parts of his body and that he had initially taken first aid at a private hospital and subsequently taken treatment at Manipal Hospital. On scrutiny of Ex.P2, the Wound Certificate, it is seen that the petitioner has sustained grievious injury. 17. The Doctor, who had assessed the disability of the petitioner was examined as PW2. On scrutiny of Ex.P2, the Wound Certificate, it is seen that the petitioner has sustained grievious injury. 17. The Doctor, who had assessed the disability of the petitioner was examined as PW2. The PW2, in his evidence has stated that on 22.08.2006, he had carried out a medical examination on the petitioner and had found from medical records that the petitioner had sustained fractures in his right leg thigh bone and that he had received treatment to set that right. The Doctor has further stated that after he had taken Xray of the affected portion of the leg, he had found that the bones have been set but bent slightly and that the rods kept inside the leg to support the bone was taken out, but that the screws joining the bones had not been taken out. He had further deposed that the length of the right leg of the petitioner is shorter than the length of the left leg of the petitioner by 1 Cms and due to this the petitioner walks with a pronounced tilt towards his right leg and that he is unable to walk fast and run. He had also stated that the muscles in the right leg thigh of the petitioner had become compressed and has stated that the petitioner had sustained 40% disability due to the accident and in support of his evidence had marked Ex.P10, the Disability Certificate. The Tribunal, on considering evidence of the PW1 and PW2 and scrutiny of Wound Certificate held that the petitioner had sustained grievious injury in the accident and so is entitled to get compensation from the respondent. 18. The petitioner has claimed that before the accident he was a dealer in spare parts for lights and was also running a travel agency and tiffin shop and was also an agriculturist and was earning an income of Rs.10,000/-per month and that he is not able to continue doing these works, due to the disability sustained by him in the accident. But, the Tribunal considering that no documentary proof has been furnished by the petitioner to establish proof of his income and occupation held that the notional salary of the petitioner could only be fixed at Rs.3,000/-per month. But, the Tribunal considering that no documentary proof has been furnished by the petitioner to establish proof of his income and occupation held that the notional salary of the petitioner could only be fixed at Rs.3,000/-per month. As such, the Tribunal computed his annual income as Rs.36,000/-and adopted a multiplier of 16, as was relevant to the age of the petitioner at the time of the accident ie.39 years to assess his total loss of income. 19. The Tribunal, considering that the disability assessed by the Doctor was on the higher side held that the disability sustained by the petitioner could only be taken as 25%. The Tribunal then assessed the total loss of income incurred by the petitioner as Rs.36,000/- X 16 X 25/100 = Rs.1,44,000/-and accordingly awarded this as compensation to the petitioner under the head of loss of future earnings due to disability. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-under the head of pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/- under the head of nutrition; Rs.200/-under the head of damages to clothes; Rs.92,441/- under the head of medical expenses and Rs.2,000/- under the head of transport expenses. In total, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,48,641/- to the petitioner and directed the first and second respondents jointly or severally to deposit the above said award together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation with costs, into the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1476 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri District, Krishnagiri (Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1), within a period of two months from the date of its Order. Further, after such deposit was made, the award with interest has to be invested in a nationalised bank, as fixed deposit, for a period of three years and the petitioner was permitted to receive interest on such deposit once in six months directly from the bank. The Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.6,972/-. The respondents were directed to pay cost of Rs.8,849/- to the petitioner. 20. The Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.6,972/-. The respondents were directed to pay cost of Rs.8,849/- to the petitioner. 20. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal had erred in coming to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.MYT4247 belonging to the second respondent herein and insured with the appellant, in spite of the fact that the same has occurred due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent herein, who drove the ambassador car bearing registration No.TNG4977, at the time of the accident. It was also contended that the Tribunal had erred in believing the evidence of PW2 and fixing the disability of the first respondent herein at 25% without any basis. It was pointed out that the first respondent had only suffered simple injuries, which does not amount to permanent disability. It was also pointed out that the Tribunal had erred in fixing the monthly income of the first respondent herein at Rs.3,000/- per month without any documentary evidence and hence the compensation of Rs.1,44,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of future earning power on the basis of the monthly income of the first respondent as Rs.3,000/- and permanent disability at Rs.25% was erroneous. 21. It was also contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded a compensation for the disability at 25% only and not awarded the sum of Rs.1,44,000/- towards loss of future earning power. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal failed to note that the first respondent has no loss of earning or loss of avocation because of the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. 22. As such, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the award granted by the Tribunal on various heads being excessive and without any basis should be set aside. 23. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent argued that at the time of accident, the claimant was a middle age man, aged about 40 years and that he was the only breadwinner of his family and he was a self-employed person involved in agricultural operations as well as in business. 23. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent argued that at the time of accident, the claimant was a middle age man, aged about 40 years and that he was the only breadwinner of his family and he was a self-employed person involved in agricultural operations as well as in business. He was also the proprietor of two shops of which one was in Bangalore and another one was in Hyderabad. Due to the nature of business, he has to travel extensively. After the accident, he is unable to move or travel as he used to do before the accident. As such, his total avocation has been affected. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent further submitted that PW2, Dr.Ashok Kumar, after examination of PW1, the claimant had issued the Disability Certificate certifying that the claimant had sustained 50% disability in the accident. His right leg bone was fractured and even after setting, it is bent and as such the petitioners right leg has become shorter than his left leg by 1 cm. so he walks with a pronounced limp. Supporting this aspect or point, Ex.P10, the Disability Certificate was marked. On the whole, the Tribunal on consideration of the age, income and occupation of the claimant, had awarded a sum of Rs.2,48,641/-which is on the lower side, as the claim made in the claim petition was Rs.7,00,000/-. 24. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either sides, the Court is of the view that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable. Considering the claimants disability,nature of injuries, as also the pronounced limp with which the claimant walks and the fact that these injuries had proved a hindrance for travel, which affected the claimant in carrying out of his normal business. Further, a steel rod has been fixed in the fractured area was subsequently removed but the screws attaching the bone has not been taken out and still remains inside the petitioners leg. 25. As such, this Court is not able to find any discrepancy in the award passed by the Tribunal under the head of loss of future earning. 26. The rest of the compensation amount has been awarded under the heads of pain and suffering (Rs.5,000/-); Nutrition (Rs.5,000/-); damage of clothes (Rs.2,000/-) and medical expenses (Rs.92,441/-), which were granted on the basis of Ex.P4, Medical Bills. 26. The rest of the compensation amount has been awarded under the heads of pain and suffering (Rs.5,000/-); Nutrition (Rs.5,000/-); damage of clothes (Rs.2,000/-) and medical expenses (Rs.92,441/-), which were granted on the basis of Ex.P4, Medical Bills. In total, the Tribunals award of Rs.2,48,641/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, in M.C.O.P.No.1476 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri District, Krishnagiri, (Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1), is fair and equitable and as such this Court confirms the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 27. On 19.12.2007, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant/Insurance Company to deposit the entire compensation amount awarded into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.1476 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri District, Krishnagiri, (Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1). 28. As the accident happened in the year 2001, it is open to the claimant/respondent to withdraw the entire compensation amount together with accrued interest, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.1476 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri District, Krishnagiri, (Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1), after filing necessary payment out application, in accordance with law, subject to the deduction of withdrawals, if any. 29. As such, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Award and Decree, dated 21.12.2006, in M.C.O.P.No.1476 of 2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dharmapuri District, Krishnagiri, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition and cross objection are closed. There is no order as to costs.