Judgment :- R.BANUMATHI, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal Subordinate Judges Court, Salem in M.C.O.P.No.11 of 2006 dated 30.01.2009, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.12,82,600/-for the injuries sustained by the 1st respondent/ claimant in the road traffic accident on 11.5.2005. 2. On the wee hours of 11.05.2005 at about 2.20 a.m, the 1st respondent/claimant was travelling in a Maruthi Car bearing Regn.No.TN-30-F-3001 driven by its driver in Kovai to Perundurai road. When the car was nearing Poovampalayam Branch Road, NH-47 -Bhavani Main Road, a lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-38-Z-0150 was going in front of the Maruthi car and the driver of the lorry suddenly applied brake without giving any signal. Due to the sudden applying of brake for the lorry, the car hit on the back side of the lorry, which caused accident. In the accident, 1st respondent/claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Perundurai and thereafter admitted in Sri Gokulam Hospital, Salem and then shifted to Ganga Hospital at Coimbatore and later transferred to Dr.Kamatchi Hospital, Chennai for better treatment. At the time of the accident, the 1st respondent/ claimant was working as a Senior Marketing Executive and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. Alleging that the accident was due to the rashness and negligence of the lorry driver, the 1st respondent/ claimant filed Claim Petition -M.C.O.P.No.11 of 2006 against the owners and the insurer of both Maruthi Car as well as the lorry claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. 3. In the Tribunal, the owners of both lorry as well as the car remained exparte. Insurer of both lorry and Maruti Car viz., National Insurance Company -respondents 2 and 4, who are the appellants herein, have filed counter contending that the driver of the lorry was driving the vehicle slowly and diligently but only the driver of the Maruthi car was trying to overtake the lorry without noticing another vehicle coming in opposite direction and all of a sudden swerved to the left side and hit on the back side of the lorry. They have also raised objection regarding income of the claimant, nature of injuries and also the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant. 4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/claimant examined himself as P.W.1. The Doctor, who treated the claimant and issued the disability certificate, was examined as P.W.2. They have also raised objection regarding income of the claimant, nature of injuries and also the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant. 4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/claimant examined himself as P.W.1. The Doctor, who treated the claimant and issued the disability certificate, was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A.1 to A.15 were marked. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of car (Regn.No.TN-30-F-3001) as well as the lorry (Regn.No.TN-38-Z-0150). However, pointing out that since both Maruthi car as well as lorry are insured with National Insurance Company Limited, in different branch offices, the Tribunal held that the appellants herein, who are the insurers of the lorry as well as the Maruthi car are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In so far as the quantum of compensation, based upon Ex.A.13 -disability certificate, the Tribunal has taken disability at 100 percent. Adopting the multiplier 17 as per Second Schedule, the Tribunal has calculated the loss of discomfort at 100 percent and awarded Rs.9,18,000/- for loss of discomfort and loss of earnings. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.12,82,600/- under the following heads:- "Loss of discomfort - 100%: Rs. 9,18,000/- (Rs.4,500 x 12 x 17 x 100%) Medical expenses: Rs. 3,19,600/- Pain and suffering: Rs. 25,000/- Transport: Rs. 10,000/- Nutrition: Rs. 10,000/- Total: Rs.12,82,600/- Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 5. We have heard Mr.K.S.Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants National Insurance Company. In the grounds of appeal, it is alleged that the car hit against the rear portion of the lorry, which was sufficient to invoke the maxim res ipso loquitor and the Tribunal ought to have held that the driver of the car was responsible for the accident. In the Memorandum of appeal, it is further alleged that the percentage of disability fixed at 100 percent is on the higher side and the quantum of compensation awarded at Rs.12,82,600/- is very much on the higher side. 6. Even though notice has been served upon the 1st respondent/claimant, the 1st respondent/claimant has not entered appearance. 7. In the accident, the 1st respondent/claimant sustained grievous injuries - fracture in C.5 - 6 and dislocation quadriplegia -anterior cervical spine with fusion. And his head was tilted to right side. 6. Even though notice has been served upon the 1st respondent/claimant, the 1st respondent/claimant has not entered appearance. 7. In the accident, the 1st respondent/claimant sustained grievous injuries - fracture in C.5 - 6 and dislocation quadriplegia -anterior cervical spine with fusion. And his head was tilted to right side. Dr.S.Rajamanickam, who examined the claimant clinically and also issued the disability certificate was examined as P.W.2. P.W.2 has stated that there is no muscle movement below neck and no sensation below the neck. From the evidence of P.W.2, it is also seen that he has no control over his natures call. P.W.2 has also stated that there is no sensation and that most of the injuries are still not healed. It is appropriate to refer to the evidence of P.W.2, which reads as under: VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED 8. P.W.2 has also stated that there is a remote possibility of neurological improvement. Opining that the claimant has sustained permanent disability of 100%, P.W.2 also issued Ex.A.15 disability certificate. 9. In the grounds of appeal, even though several contentions have been raised regarding negligence and quantum, during arguments, the learned counsel for appellant fairly conceded that the appellant is not challenging the findings recorded by the Tribunal on negligence as well as quantum. 10. By perusal of the judgment of the lower Court we also find that at the time of trial, 1st respondent/claimant himself was brought to the Court only through wheel chair. The trial Court had noticed that the 1st respondent/claimant was not able to move any parts of the body and that he tilted his head only. Upon consideration of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, and also the discharge summary and Exs.A.15 -disability certificate and on seeing the condition of P.W.1, the Tribunal has fixed the permanent disability at 100 percent and we fully concur with the views of the Tribunal. 11. Ex.A.9 is certificate issued in the name of 1st respondent/claimant for completion of Pharmacist course. Ex.A.10 is the appointment letter given to the 1st respondent/claimant for working as a Senior Marketing Executive in Southern Marketers. At the time of accident, claimant was working as Marketing Executive in Southern Marketers. 11. Ex.A.9 is certificate issued in the name of 1st respondent/claimant for completion of Pharmacist course. Ex.A.10 is the appointment letter given to the 1st respondent/claimant for working as a Senior Marketing Executive in Southern Marketers. At the time of accident, claimant was working as Marketing Executive in Southern Marketers. Ex.A.11 is the monthly pay cheque/salary issued in favour of the claimant for Rs.9,000/-, whereas his monthly salary has been stated as Rs.9,000/-in Ex.A.10 - appointment letter, the monthly emoluments of the claimant have been stated as under:- "Basic Salary: Rs.3000 House Rent Allowance: Rs.2500 Conveyance Allowance: Rs.2500 Transportation & Mobile: Rs.1000 Total: Rs.9000 12. Even though claimant has produced documents showing that his salary is Rs.9,000/- per month, the Tribunal has taken the salary only at Rs.4,500/-. In our considered view, based on Ex.A.10, the Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly salary at Rs.9,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries and that the claimant has been reduced to mere vegetable existence, we are of the view that the Tribunal ought to have awarded higher compensation by taking the monthly salary at Rs.9,000/-. Likewise, we also feel that the Tribunal ought to have awarded future medical expenses and also future attendant charges. However, since the 1st respondent/claimant has not entered appearance, we do not propose to go into the question whether the respondent/claimant deserves any further enhancement of compensation and that issue is left open. 13. As pointed out in paragraph No.4, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.12,82,600/- and the same is jointly and severally liable to be paid by the respondents 1 and 2 and the respondents 3 and 4 at the ratio of 50:50 and the same is hereby confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the ratio of 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of deposit and the same is also maintained. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants have deposited the entire compensation amount along with accrued interest. 14. In the result, the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal Sub-Court, Salem in M.C.O.P.No.11 of 2006 dated 30.1.2009 is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. The respondent claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount payable to him along with accrued interest, if he has not already withdrawn. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.