Anil Kumar Sharma, J.— We have heard Mr S.K. Kakkar, learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company., and Mr Ram Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 (claimant). The insurer of Indica car no. UP-14-AC-2616 has challenged the award dated 1.1.2013 passed by the MACT/Addl. District Judge, Court No. 6, Ghaziabad (hereafter, the Tribunal), in M.A.C.P. No. 253 of 2011, whereby a compensation of Rs. 15,02,600/-, together with simple interest at the rate of 7 percent per month from the date of filing the petition till final payment, had been awarded to respondent no. 1 on account of grievous injuries received by him in the motor accident and the appellant has been directed to indemnify the award to the extent of 50 percent. It appears that on 16.3.2011 the claimant-respondent, along with his friend Padam Raj Tyagi, was returning back home in the said car driven by his aforementioned friend. When he took U-turn near an outpost of Sector 9 at about 11:30pm, the driver of truck no. HR-58/4417, coming from Meerut side, and driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, dashed with the aforesaid car causing injuries to the claimant and his friend. Both the injured were admitted for treatment in Gargi Hospital, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Since the condition of the claimant was precarious, he was shifted to and admitted in the Fortis Hospital, NOIDA, on 17.3.2011, where he is still under treatment. The report of the accident was lodged by Padam Raj Tyagi on 17.3.2011 in PS Kavinagar, Ghaziabad, against the driver of the aforesaid truck which was insured by the appellant. The opposite parties contested the claim petition and made counter-allegations against the driver of the other vehicle for being rash and negligent in driving their respective vehicle. The parties adduced their oral and documentary evidence. After considering the evidence on record and hearing the parties' counsel, the Tribunal found that the drivers of both the vehicles were equally responsible for the accident. It was further found that the claimant had spent Rs. 15,55,600/- in his treatment and, after deducting Rs. 1,50,000/- paid to him for his personal medical insurance, sum of Rs. 14,05,600/- was awarded. The monthly income of the claimant from property dealing business was assessed at Rs. 9,000/- and, therefore, Rs. 36,000/- was awarded for the loss in income, Rs. 6,000/- for an attendant, Rs. 10,000/- for transport, Rs. 10,000/- for nutritional diet and Rs. 1,50,000/- paid to him for his personal medical insurance, sum of Rs. 14,05,600/- was awarded. The monthly income of the claimant from property dealing business was assessed at Rs. 9,000/- and, therefore, Rs. 36,000/- was awarded for the loss in income, Rs. 6,000/- for an attendant, Rs. 10,000/- for transport, Rs. 10,000/- for nutritional diet and Rs. 10,000/- for loss of enjoyment in life have further been awarded. The appellant has been directed to indemnify the award to the extent of 50 percent. Challenging the award, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal has erred in apportioning the negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles and awarded excessive and higher amount of compensation to the claimant. We have been taken through the statements of the witnesses, copy of the F.I.R. and the site-plan filed by the appellant along with the memo of appeal. The report of the accident had been lodged on 17.3.2011 by the driver of Indica car who was also injured in the accident. A perusal of the site-plan shows that the accident took place at a triangular crossing. The car of the injured-claimant was coming from the eastern side and took turn towards the south. There is a divider on the main road and the place of accident, the western side of this road, is the wrong side for a vehicle coming from the north side. Padam Raj Tyagi, PW 2, has fairly admitted in his examination that if he had not taken turn at the cut, the accident would not have taken place. The statement of this witness, coupled with the site-plan, clearly proved that PW 2 was negligent in taking the turn at the triangular crossing. He could have very easily turned towards the south of eastern side of the main road and then after taking U-turn on the next cut, could have come back. In these circumstances, we find that the learned Tribunal has not at all erred in apportioning the liability of the Indica car driver to the extent of 50 percent. As regards the quantum of compensation, on a perusal of the award we find that the Tribunal has considered the documentary evidence filed by the claimant, which included the bills/vouchers/receipts regarding payments made on his behalf in the hospital and in purchasing medicines. The total amount of these bills has been rounded off to Rs. 15,55,600/-. As regards the quantum of compensation, on a perusal of the award we find that the Tribunal has considered the documentary evidence filed by the claimant, which included the bills/vouchers/receipts regarding payments made on his behalf in the hospital and in purchasing medicines. The total amount of these bills has been rounded off to Rs. 15,55,600/-. The Tribunal has deducted a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-, which was received by the claimant from his medical insurance and, thus, a sum of Rs. 14,05,600/- has been rightly awarded to the claimant for the expenses incurred in his medical treatment. The claimant is a resident of Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, and was engaged in the business of property dealing. The Tribunal has assessed his monthly income at Rs. 9,000/-, which cannot be regarded exorbitant in any manner. The claimant has also examined Dr L.M. Darlon of Fortis Hospital, who has proved medical papers of the claimant regarding his treatment as indoor patient in Fortis Hospital, NOIDA, from 17.3.2011 and 13.4.2011. The doctor has further stated that all the bones of the chest of the claimant were broken, and, even after treatment, the claimant cannot be restored to his original condition. In these circumstances, we find that the Tribunal has awarded fair and reasonable compensation to the claimant under the aforesaid heads. In view of what has been stated above, we find that the impugned award does not suffer from any illegality, factual or legal, and, thus, the appeal is sans merit and is according dismissed. The Registry is directed to remit the statutory deposit made by the appellant within 3 weeks from today to the Tribunal for making adjustment. _____________