Judgment :- 1. The appellant/petitioner has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation as against the award dated 27.8.2004 passed in MCOP.No.132 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (1st Addl. Sub Judge), Erode. 2. The appellant/claimant has filed claim petition for compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident occurred on 13.7.2002. Briefly, the case of the appellant/petitioner is that on 13.7.2002, at about 9.15 pm, when the petitioner and his friend Joseph were standing in front of Annamar Petrol bunk on the extreme western side of the north south Poondurai Road, a lorry bearing Regn.No.45-Z-3297, driven by its driver from south to north direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, lost control and deviated towards left side of the road and knocked down the petitioner and he was dragged along with the lorry and finally halted after hitting the compound wall of a burial ground and the petitioner has sustained severe crush injury and multiple fractures on the left thigh and multiple injuries all over the body and he was taken treatment as inpatient at Lotus Apollo Hospital, Erode from 13.7.2002 to 17.7.2002 and also at Erode Government Hospital and was shifted to JPR Clinic and underwent treatment till the time of filing the petition and he sustained permanent disability and the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent herein, who is the driver of the 2nd respondent's lorry and the third respondent is the insurer of the above said lorry. At the time of accident, the age of the petitioner was 35 years and he was proprietor of Meenakshi Bala Machine Pattarai and was earning Rs.8000/- p.m and the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the the driver of the 2nd respondent's lorry and therefore the 2nd respondent who is the owner of the lorry and 3rd respondent-insurance company are liable to pay Rs.10 lakhs as compensation. 3. The first respondent, driver of the lorry and the 2nd respondent, owner of the lorry, remained exparte before the Tribunal. 3. The first respondent, driver of the lorry and the 2nd respondent, owner of the lorry, remained exparte before the Tribunal. On the side of the 3rd respondent-insurance company filed counter, in which, it is stated that the owner and driver of the lorry have not informed the alleged accident to the 3rd respondent and hence they contravened the conditions of insurance policy and further the petitioner should prove the alleged accident involving the lorry and its driver. It is further stated that the petitioner should prove the alleged multiple major injuries all over the body, medical expenses, treatment taken, disability by reliable oral and documentary evidence. It is also stated that the accident was not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent, driver of the lorry and the amount of compensation claimed is excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioner, the injured petitioner himself deposed as PW.1 and also examined Dr.S.Natarajan as PW.2 and marked 27 documents as Exs.P1 to P27. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked. The Tribunal discussed in detail about the oral and documentary evidence and finally held that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent., who is the driver of the 2nd respondent's lorry and therefore the insurer is liable to pay compensation. 5. The Tribunal has passed award on various heads as under: "Transportation - Rs. 2,500.00 Extra-nourishment - Rs. 3,000.00 Medical expenses - Rs. 50,000.00 Permanent disability - Rs. 35,000.00 Loss of earning capacity - Rs. 60,000.00 Rs.1,50,500.00 Aggrieved over the above said award, the petitioner has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. Therefore the point for determination in this appeal is "whether the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?" 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records. 7. As already stated, on the side of the appellant/petitioner, the injured petitioner himself has deposed as PW.1 and also marked Ex.P1-copy of FIR, Ex.P2-copy of rough sketch, Ex.P3-copy of observation mahazar, Ex.P4-copy of chargesheet, Ex.P5-copy of M.V.Report. The above said oral and documentary evidence reveal that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent who is the driver of the 2nd respondent's lorry. No contra evidence on the side of the respondents. The above said oral and documentary evidence reveal that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent who is the driver of the 2nd respondent's lorry. No contra evidence on the side of the respondents. Therefore the Tribunal has correctly held that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent, driver of the lorry and respondents 2 and 3, who are owner and insurer of the lorry, are liable to pay compensation. 8. With regard to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has fixed the age of the injured petitioner as 35 years on the basis of Ex.P6-wound certificate and fixed the income of the petitioner as Rs.3500/- p.m even though the petitioner has claimed that he was running Meenakshi Bala Machine Pattarai and earning Rs.8000/-p.m. The above said facts are not seriously disputed by the respondents. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the Tribunal has wrongly fixed the disability as 35% without considering the disability certificate Ex.P25 issued by competent doctor PW.2 and also without considering the medical bills issued by various hospitals, the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioner and only awarded Rs.50,000/- for medical expenses and also contended that the amounts awarded on other heads are very low and hence prayed for enhancing the compensation. 10. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent insurance company has contended that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the disability as 35% and since the medical bills are not reliable, awarded Rs.50,000/-for medical expenses and the Tribunal has correctly assessed and awarded for other heads also and no need to interfere in the above said award passed by the Tribunal. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the above said accident and as per P.W.2 doctor's oral evidence and Ex.P25 disability certificate issued by the doctor reveal that the petitioner had sustained 40% disability due to the abovesaid injuries. The Tribunal has not given sufficient reason for reducing the percentage of disability given by the competent doctor as 35% from 40%. On perusal of the oral evidence of PW.2 and the above said disability certificate, this Court is of the view that PW.2 doctor has correctly assessed the disability as 40% and therefore 40% disability is to be taken for fixing compensation. On perusal of the oral evidence of PW.2 and the above said disability certificate, this Court is of the view that PW.2 doctor has correctly assessed the disability as 40% and therefore 40% disability is to be taken for fixing compensation. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.35000/-for permanent disability since it has fixed 35% disability. The oral and documentary evidence reveal that the injured petitioner sustained various injuries including grievous injuries and taken treatment in various hospitals for 50 days as in-patient and he sustained 40% disability. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries, period of treatment and other factors, Rs.80,000/- is to be awarded for permanent disability. 12. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount for pain and suffering instead the Tribunal has awarded Rs.60,000/-for loss of earning capacity. Considering the nature of injuries, period of treatment and other factors, Rs.15000/-is to be awarded on the head of pain and suffering. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.50,000/- for medical expenses rejecting several medical bills as not proved as true documents. Now the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the abovesaid medical bills in Exs.P7 to P18 are true documents and total amount comes to Rs.1,50,954/-. Except one or two suspicious bills, all the remaining bills are true and valid documents. Therefore on perusal of medical bills and considering the contentions of learned counsel on either side, Rs.1,00,000/- is to be awarded for medical expenses. With regard to extra-nourishment, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.3000/-. Admittedly, the petitioner has taken treatment for long period in various hospitals. Therefore the abovesaid amount is to be increased as Rs.5000/- from Rs.3000/-. Likewise, for transportation the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2500/- , which is considered as very low and therefore it is to be increased as Rs.5000/-. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount for loss of earning during the treatment period. As already discussed, the petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient for long period in various hospitals and therefore Rs.10,000/-is to be awarded for loss of earning during treatment period. 13. Therefore, to arrive at just and reasonable compensation, this Court passes the award on various heads as under: "Transportation - Rs. 5,000.00 Extra-nourishment - Rs. 5,000.00 Pain and suffering - Rs. 15,000.00 Medical expenses - Rs.1,00,000.00 Permanent disability - Rs. 80,000.00 Loss of earning during treatment period - Rs. 10,000.00 Rs.2,15,000.00 14. 13. Therefore, to arrive at just and reasonable compensation, this Court passes the award on various heads as under: "Transportation - Rs. 5,000.00 Extra-nourishment - Rs. 5,000.00 Pain and suffering - Rs. 15,000.00 Medical expenses - Rs.1,00,000.00 Permanent disability - Rs. 80,000.00 Loss of earning during treatment period - Rs. 10,000.00 Rs.2,15,000.00 14. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed and the award amount passed by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced from Rs.1,55,500/- to Rs.2,15,000/-(Rupees two lakhs and fifteen thousand only). The third respondent is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.2,15,000/-with 9% interest per annum from the date of claim petition within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the appellant/petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same. No costs.