Judgment : 1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/second respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 30.09.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.1031 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Addl. District Court, Pondicherry, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,21,246/- together 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 Branch Manager, National Insurance Co., Ltd., Villupuram has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 28.05.2003, at about 05.30 p.m. the petitioner was riding his TVS moped bearing registration No.PY01 M6986, on the extreme left side of Thirukkanur road, from west to east direction, and while nearing Kodathur Manavely Kalaivani Workshop, a Vikram Tempo van bearing registration No.TN32 B5725, proceeding on the same road, from east to west direction, and driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, dashed against the petitioners motorcycle. As a result of this, the petitioner was thrown out on the road and sustained fractures in his right knee, right leg bones and injuries all over the body. The petitioner was immediately taken to Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry and received treatment as an inpatient. On 29.05.2003, an operation was conducted to set right the injuries sustained by the petitioner. The petitioner was discharged on 04.06.2003. 4. The petitioner was a mason, earning a sum of Rs.150/- per day, prior to the accident, and he is the only breadwinner of his entire family. After the accident, he is not able to work as he used to do before the accident. As the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Vikram Tempo van bearing registration No.TN32 B5725, the first respondent, as its owner and the second respondent as its insurer are jointly liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-from the respondents, together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, with costs, under Section 166(1)(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. The petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-from the respondents, together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, with costs, under Section 166(1)(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. Regarding the said accident, a criminal case has been registered by the Station House Officer, Thirukkanur Police Station, Pondicherry, in Crime No.75/2003, dated 30.05.2003. 6. The second respondent, in his Counter has resisted the claim denying the averments contained in the claim as regards the manner of accident. It has been submitted that the said TVS50 was ridden at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and that the petitioner tried to overtake another vehicle proceeding ahead of him, without seeing the oncoming respondents Vikram Tempo van bearing registration No.TN32 B5725 and due to this, the motorcycle had dashed against the van that resulted in the accident. As such, the respondent has stated that the accident was also caused due to the contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. 7. The respondent has also denied the averments in the claim regarding the age, income and occupation of the petitioner. Further, the respondent has submitted that the petitioner did not have a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle, at the time of accident and that the driving licence of the petitioner has not been produced to the Motor Vehicle Inspector. The respondent has also denied the averments in the claim regarding the nature of injuries. It has been submitted that the petitioner has not suffered any fractures and as such the contention of the petitioner that he had sustained permanent/partial disability was untrue. As such, the respondent has submitted that the claim is excessive and has to be dismissed with costs. The respondent has also submitted that the petitioner has to prove that the driver of the van was having valid driving licence and that the said vehicle was covered by proper documents as contemplated under Motor Vehicles Act at the time of accident. 8. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for the consideration namely: (i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tempo van bearing registration No.TN32 B5725? 8. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for the consideration namely: (i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tempo van bearing registration No.TN32 B5725? (ii) Whether the driver of the van, belonging to the first respondent, had a valid driving licence and whether the said van was covered by proper documents, as contemplated under the Motor Vehicle Act, at the time of accident? (iii) What was the nature of injury sustained by the petitioner and what is the quantum of compensation, he is entitled to get and who is liable to pay the compensation? 9. On the petitioners side, two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and nine documents were marked as Ex.A1 to A9. On the respondents side, the Senior Assistant of the second respondents company was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked. 10. the petitioner was examined as PW1 before the Tribunal. The PW1 in his evidence has reiterated the same manner of accident as was stated by him in the claim. Ex.A1, the photocopy of FIR, registered against the driver of the said Tempo van shows prima facie that the accident had been caused by the negligence on the part of the driver of the van. From a scrutiny of Ex.A3, the copy of the Accident Inspection Report, it is seen that the accident has not taken place due to any mechanical defects of the vehicles involved. The respondents did not choose to examine the driver of the said van. As such, the Tribunal, on considering that the insurer cannot take a defence that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondents vehicle without examining him and considering that no contrary evidence has been produced to counter the evidence of PW1, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the van belonging to the first respondent. 11. It is a trite proposition of law that the second respondent, the insurer of the first respondents vehicle should prove that the driver of the first respondents vehicle was not having a valid driving licence and that the said vehicle was not covered by proper documents as contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act at the time of accident, but no evidence was let in to prove this. Ex.A2 is the photocopy of the Insurance Certificate issued by the second respondent in favour of the first respondents vehicle, covering the date of accident. In Ex.A3, the Accident Inspection Report, the Motor Vehicle Inspector has stated that he had examined the driving licence of the driver of the first respondent and other documents relating to the said van and found them in order. Ex.A4 is the RC Book of the Tempo van. On scrutiny of Ex.A4, it is seen that the driver had a valid driving licence on the date of accident. Ex.A5 is the Driving Licence of the driver of first respondents van. As such, the Tribunal held that the driver of the first respondents vehicle was having proper valid driving licence and that the said vehicle was covered by proper insurance with valid documents, as contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, at the time of the accident. 12. The petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-for the grievious injuries sustained in the accident. Ex.A7, the photocopy of the Wound Certificate issued by G.H.Pondicherry, reveals that the petitioner has sustained lacerated wound over right knee and a lacerated wound over right shoulder. The Doctor opined that the injuries are grievious in nature as the petitioner was aged only 18 years at the time of accident. Ex.A9 is the Xray taken on the petitioner. To prove the disability sustained by the petitioner, PW2, Dr.R.V.Krishnakumar was examined. The PW2 issued Ex.P8, the Disability Certificate, wherein he assessed the disability of the petitioner at 40%. The PW2 assessed the disability by taking into account the following: 1. A portion of lateral candyle of right femur is missing with secondary degenerative changes in right knee joint, 2. Restriction of movements of right knee joint, 3. Laxly of lateral collateral legament with knee going to valgus on strain, 4. Quadriceps wasting right thing, As such, the Tribunal, on considering that no fault can be found out in the assessment done by the PW2, held that the permanent disability sustained by the petitioner was 40%. 13. The petitioners claims that he was working as a mason and was earning a sum of Rs.150/- per day. But, he has neither produced any documentary evidence to show his earning capacity nor had chosen to examine his employer. 13. The petitioners claims that he was working as a mason and was earning a sum of Rs.150/- per day. But, he has neither produced any documentary evidence to show his earning capacity nor had chosen to examine his employer. Hence, the Tribunal, in the absence of proof regarding his earning capacity, fixed the notional income of the petitioner as Rs.15,000/- per annum. As the petitioner was aged about 18 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 16 to assess the compensation, and assessed the compensation as Rs.15,000/- X 40/100 X 16 = Rs.96,000/-and granted the same as compensation to the petitioner under the head of loss of income due to disability. As per Ex.A7, the petitioner was treated as an inpatient for six days. As such, the Tribunal computed the loss of income of the petitioner for six days as Rs.246/-and granted the same as compensation under the head of loss of income during the period of treatment. The Tribunal further granted an award of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner under the head of pain and suffering; a sum of Rs.10,000/-under the head of mental agony; and a sum of Rs.10,000/-under the head of nutrition. In total, the Tribunal granted an award of Rs.1,21,246/-as compensation to the petitioner and directed the respondent to deposit the above said award together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.1031 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Addl. District Court, Pondicherry. After deposit was made, the award amount with accrued interest was to be deposited in Central Bank of India, Pondicherry, for a period of three years and the petitioner was permitted to receive interest on such deposit, once in three months. The petitioner was directed to pay the deficit Court fee, if any. The respondents were directed to pay the cost of Rs.4,354.50 to the petitioner and the Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.3,760/-. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in the appeal that the award of Rs.5,000/- granted by the Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering and an award of Rs.96,000/- granted under the head of loss of earning capacity are erroneous as the award has been passed without any documentary evidence. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in the appeal that the award of Rs.5,000/- granted by the Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering and an award of Rs.96,000/- granted under the head of loss of earning capacity are erroneous as the award has been passed without any documentary evidence. It was also pointed out that as the claimant has only suffered simple injuries, the Tribunals acceptance of the disability of 40% assessed by the Doctor was erroneous. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has therefore contended that the entire award of Rs.1,21,246/- passed by the Tribunal under various heads are erroneous and without any acceptable oral/documentary evidence and has prayed to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent argued that the claimant had sustained four grievious injuries and that due to these injuries, the claimants movements have become restricted. The Doctor, after examining the claimant, had assessed the disability of claimant as 40%. The learned counsel had further stated that the claimant had been hospitalised for a period of one week and that in this period he had undergone surgery. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent pointed out that the claimants age was 18 years at the time of accident and that he was involved in the strenuous work as a mason and as such the claimant had to apply physical force to do his work. After the accident, his avocation has been affected. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, scrutiny of findings of the Tribunal and after hearing arguments advanced by the learned counsels for their respective parties, the Court is of the view that the Tribunal had awarded the compensation of Rs.96,000/- under the head of loss of income after adopting a multiplier of 16 and taking the notional income of the claimant as Rs.15,000/-per annum. On this assessment done by the Tribunal, the Court is not able to find any error and as such the Court confirms the award granted under this head. The Tribunals award of Rs.5,000/- under the head of pain and suffering; and the award of Rs.10,000/-under the head of nutrition are found to be reasonable and as such is confirmed by this Court. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-under the head of mental agony. The Tribunals award of Rs.5,000/- under the head of pain and suffering; and the award of Rs.10,000/-under the head of nutrition are found to be reasonable and as such is confirmed by this Court. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-under the head of mental agony. This Court finds that the award granted under the head of mental agony is not relevant. Consequently, this Court splits the amount granted under this head as an award of Rs.5,000/- under the head of transport expenses and as an award of Rs.5,000/-under the head of loss of pleasure of life, considering that the claimant was 18 years old at the time of accident. 17. As such, the Court confirms the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Addl. District Court, Pondicherry, in M.C.O.P.No.1031 of 2003, dated 30.09.2004, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. 18. At the time of admission, on 09.03.2005, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant/National Insurance Co., Ltd., to deposit the entire compensation amount including interest and costs, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.1031 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Addl. District Court, Pondicherry. 19. As the accident happened in the year 2003, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount, together with interest accrued thereon, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.1031 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Addl. District Court, Pondicherry, after filing necessary payment out application, in accordance with law, subject to the deduction of withdrawals, if any. 20. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Award and Decree, dated 30.09.2004, in M.C.O.P.No.1031 of 2003, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Addl. District Court, Pondicherry, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.