Judgment 1. The 1st respondent/claimant had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.802 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, for claiming compensation a sum of Rs.9,00,000/-with interest stating that on 15.10.2002, at about 06.00 p.m., when the claimant was travelling in the Jeep bearing registration No.TKL-10A-1428, on the Bodinayakanoor to Munar main road, along with her son, the driver of the jeep had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in order to overtake a bus and dashed against an electric post. In the impact, the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries. Hence, the claimant had filed the said claim against the respondents. 2. The 2nd respondent/National Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and denied the occurrence of the accident. It was submitted that while the claimant was travelling in the Jeep, she had stretched her hand outside the window. At that time, the RMTC bus which was trying to overtake the jeep had dashed against the arm of the claimant. As such the owner of the bus and its insurer are necessary parties in the claim case and they are liable to pay compensation. Further it was submitted that the capacity of the Jeep was only 10 persons but the entire family members had travelled in the jeep. The respondent had denied the averments in the claim regarding nature of injuries, mode of treatment and medical expenses etc. The respondent had further stated in their additional counter that the driver of the jeep did not have a driving licence and that the driver had unambiguously admitted the same. Hence, he was punished by the Judicial Magistrate. As such, the same ground had been established on the file of the Judicial Magistrate. Hence, the 1st respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation. 3. After considering the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: (1) Did the 1st respondent's driver, committed the accident due to his rash and negligent driving?; (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? 4. On the side of the claimants, two witnesses had been examined namely the claimant and doctor and eleven documents were marked namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-wound certificate; Ex.P3-judgment copy; Ex.P4-Hospital admission record; Ex.P5-discharge summary; Ex.P6-medical bills; Ex.P7-case sheet; Ex.P8-identification card; Ex.P9-salary certificate; Ex.P10-x ray and Ex.P11-disability certificate. 4. On the side of the claimants, two witnesses had been examined namely the claimant and doctor and eleven documents were marked namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-wound certificate; Ex.P3-judgment copy; Ex.P4-Hospital admission record; Ex.P5-discharge summary; Ex.P6-medical bills; Ex.P7-case sheet; Ex.P8-identification card; Ex.P9-salary certificate; Ex.P10-x ray and Ex.P11-disability certificate. On the side of the respondent, one Marimuthu Arulsami was examined and four documents were marked namely: Copy of Policy; Copy of office notice; Acknowledgment card and copy of notice etc. 5. PW.1, had adduced evidence stating that on 15.10.2002, when she was travelling in the Jeep bearing registration No. No.TKL-10A-1428, from Bodinayakanur to Munar on the main road and while the jeep was proceeding on the said road, the driver of the jeep had driven the jeep in a rash and negligent manner and tried to overtake the bus which was proceeding ahead of the jeep and in doing so, the jeep was dashed against an electric post. In the result, she had sustained bone fracture injuries. PW.1, further stated that in the said Jeep, totally seven members had travelled. She further stated that immediately after the accident, she was admitted at the Bodinaickanoor Government Hospital, wherein she had undergone treatment. For further better treatment, she was referred to Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai, wherein she had undergone treatment, as an inpatient for about 25 days. During this period, a surgical operation was conducted on her right hand. Again, she was admitted at Vikram Hospital, Madurai and also at Srinivasan Venkatesan Hospital, Bodinaickanur, wherein two more major operations were conducted. In order to prove her evidence, she had marked the above mentioned documents on her side. 6. PW.2, Doctor had adduced evidence stating that the claimant had sustained bone fracture injuries and her movement of her right arm join has become restricted and he had assessed the disability as 69% after examining the claimant and verification of medical records. 7. On the side of the respondent, RW.1 was examined and he had adduced evidence stating that the vehicle was insured under the 'Act' policy. He deposed that the driver did not possess a driving licence. RW.1, further stated that in the said Jeep, 12 persons had travelled. 7. On the side of the respondent, RW.1 was examined and he had adduced evidence stating that the vehicle was insured under the 'Act' policy. He deposed that the driver did not possess a driving licence. RW.1, further stated that in the said Jeep, 12 persons had travelled. After considering the evidence of both sides and on scrutinising the documents, which had been marked by both the parties and on scrutiny of evidence recorded by both parties, the motor accident claims tribunal held that the driver of the Jeep had committed the accident due to his rash and negligent driving and as such held the insurance company liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the Tribunal granted an award of Rs.1,85,300/- as compensation to the claimant and directed the insurance company to pay the said compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 8. Aggrieved by the said award and decree passed by the Tribunal, the above appeal has been filed. The learned counsel argued that the driver of the jeep had no valid driving licence and there was breech of policy condition by the insured. The learned counsel further argued that the doctor had assessed the disability at 69% which is on the higher side. The insured had insured the vehicle under the "Act" policy category. The rate of interest of 9% fixed by the Tribunal is also on the higher side. Further, in the offending jeep, 12 persons had travelled which is over and above the normal capacity of the jeep which is ten persons. 9. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant had spent Rs.66,000/-towards medical expenses at various Government and Private Hospital. The doctor had assessed the disability sustained by petitioner as 69%. The Tribunal had not granted an adequate compensation under the head of transport and nutrition and pain and suffering. The claimant had undergone three surgical operations on her right hand. As such, the claimant right hand had become non functional. 10. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at to determine the liability and quantum of compensation. As such, the claimant right hand had become non functional. 10. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at to determine the liability and quantum of compensation. Further, this Court is of the view that no RTO officials had been examined to ascertain whether or not the driver of the Jeep had a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, this Court confirms the said award passed by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.30,000/- under the head of injuries which is not proper. Hence, this Court restructures the compensation as follows: This Court awards Rs.62,300/- towards medical expenses; Rs.69,000/- towards disability; Rs.15,000/-towards pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/- towards transport; Rs.10,000/- towards nutrition; Rs.10,000/-towards loss of during medical treatment period and convalescence period and Rs.9,000/- under the head of loss of comfort and loss of amenities due to disability in her right hand. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is unaltered. 11. As per this Court's record, on 16.09.2005, the 2nd respondent was directed to deposit the entire award amount with interest and costs. Now, this Court directs the appellant to comply with the same, if not complied with already by way of depositing the said sum before the Trial Court, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 12. After such deposit has been made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.802 of 2003, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order, subject to deduction of withdrawals made, if any. 13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.802 of 2003, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, is confirmed, dated 23.03.2005,No costs.