Judgment 1. The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the appeal in C.M.A.No.1006 of 2008, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.526 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 3rd Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai. 2. The petitioner has filed a claim in M.C.O.P.No.562 of 2004, claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- from the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 16.10.2003, when the petitioner and his son-in-law were in the extreme end of the north-south road after crossing the north-south road, i.e., Madurai to Virudhunagar main road from western side, the 1st respondents vehicle bearing registration No.TN-58H-4430, driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, without sounding horn and without giving any indication and coming on the same road from south towards north, dashed against the petitioner and caused the accident. The petitioner sustained severe injuries and was initially admitted at Thirumangalam Government Hospital, wherein first aid was given and subsequently was admitted at Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital, wherein he received treatment, as an inpatient, from 16.10.2003 to 04.11.2003. On 23.10.2003 a surgery was conducted. At the time of accident, the petitioner was working as an accountant at Mahalakshmi Agencies, Thirumangalam. Due to injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner has sustained permanent disability. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-58H-4430. 3. The 2nd respondent, in his counter has submitted that the accident had occurred only because the petitioner, after coming out from the shop owned by his son-in-law, on the Madurai – Virudhunagar main road had tried to cross the road on the northern side of the said road, as per the rough sketch produced by the police department and not as alleged in the claim. It was submitted that the complaint regarding the accident had been given belatedly and F.I.R had been registered after a delay of 17 days. The averments in the claim regarding nature of injuries was also not admitted. It was submitted that the 1st respondent's driver had not been rash and negligent in his driving as alleged in the claim. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. The averments in the claim regarding nature of injuries was also not admitted. It was submitted that the 1st respondent's driver had not been rash and negligent in his driving as alleged in the claim. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had framed four issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Was the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle?; (2) Who is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner?; (3) What is the quantum of compensation, which is the petitioner is entitled to get?; (4) To what other relief is the petitioner entitled to get?. 5. On the petitioners side, two witnesses were examined and ten documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P10 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-wound certificate; Ex.P3-charge sheet; Ex.P4-Criminal Court Judgment; Ex.P5-discharge summary issued at Prithi Hospital; Ex.P6-x rays; Ex.P7-medical bills for Rs.26,064; Ex.P8-disability certificate; Ex.P9-case sheet; Ex.P10- x rays. On the respondent's side, one witness was examined and no document was marked. 6. It was contended on the side of the 2nd respondent that the accident occurred on 16.10.2003 and that the F.I.R regarding accident was registered only on 03.11.2003 as per Ex.P1 and that the petitioner had not given any reasons for the delay in filing F.I.R. On scrutiny of F.I.R, it is seen that one Chellapandi, the son-in-law of the injured petitioner had given the complaint, wherein he has stated that as he had been assisting his father-in-law at the Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, he was able to give the complaint at Thirumangalam Nagar Police Stating only on 03.11.2003. Hence, the Tribunal on scrutiny of Ex.P9, medical records of Madurai Government Rajaji Hospital, Ex.P1-F.I.R and Ex.P3-charge sheet, opined that just because the complaint had been filed belatedly, it could not be held that the petitioner is not entitled to get compensation. 7. It is seen from scrutiny of Ex.P1, that the complaint has been registered against one Tamilselvan, the rider of the 1st respondent's Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-58H-4430 and that a charge sheet had admitted his guilt and paid the fine as per Ex.P4, the criminal Court judgment. The Tribunal further observed that the 2nd respondent had not examined the said Tamilselvan to rebut the claim of the petitioner. 8. The Tribunal further observed that the 2nd respondent had not examined the said Tamilselvan to rebut the claim of the petitioner. 8. PW.1, the petitioner had adduced evidence that on 14.10.2003, at about 09.00 a.m., when he was standing in the road, opposite to the Thirumangalam bus stand, the 1st respondent's motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-58H-4430, driven by its rider at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against him. He deposed that he had sustained injuries on his left hip and that he was admitted at the Thirumangala, Government Hospital initially and later on took treatment at Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital, as an inpatient from 16.10.2003 to 23.10.2003. He deposed that as the operation could not be done at this hospital as it was Deepavali time, he was admitted at Preethi Hospital, K.K. Nagar, wherein an operation was conducted on 23.10.2003. He deposed that the complaint regarding the accident had been given by his son-in-law namely Chellpandi. 9. Hence the Tribunal, on considering the oral and documentary evidence held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by the rider of the 1st respondent's vehicle and hence held the 2nd respondent liable to pay compensation. 10. PW.2, Doctor K. Ravichandran, had deposed evidence that he had examined the petitioner on 14.01.-2006 and that after taking x rays and on scrutiny of medical records, he had seen that the left knee had been fractured and displaced and that a surgery had been done at Preethi Hospital, wherein plate and screws were fixed in the fractured area. He deposed that the bone had not united and that the screws had also been displaced. He deposed that the movements of his left knee joint had become restricted and due to this the petitioner is not able to set cross legged and is not able to squat and that he is able to walk only with the support of a crutch. He deposed that the left leg of the petitioner has been shortened by 2 cms and that the partial permanent disability sustained by the petitioner was 41%. In support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P8, the disability certificate. However, on cross examination he had admitted that he had not treated the petitioner. He deposed that the left leg of the petitioner has been shortened by 2 cms and that the partial permanent disability sustained by the petitioner was 41%. In support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P8, the disability certificate. However, on cross examination he had admitted that he had not treated the petitioner. Hence, the tribunal on considering that PW.2 had not treated the petitioner, held that the disability sustained by the petitioner on this Count could only be taken as 25%. 11. Hence, the Tribunal on considering the oral and documentary evidence, awarded a compensation of Rs.2,000/- towards transport; Rs.8,000/- towards nutrition; Rs.28,000/-towards medical expenses incurred as per Ex.P7 and for future medical expenses; Rs.7,500/- under the head of pain and suffering; Rs.25,000/-towards partial permanent disability of 25%. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.70,500/- as compensation to the petitioner and directed the 2nd respondent to deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit within one month from the date of its order. 12. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/United India Insurance Company Limited, has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Tribunal had failed to consider that as per Ex.R1, the claimant was hit by a bicycle and not by a motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-58H-4430. It was contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the examination of RW.1 and marking of Ex.R1, the accident register. It was pointed out that the Tribunal did not consider the same and did not even make a whisper about the same in its award. It was pointed out that the alleged accident occurred on 16.10.2003 but the F.I.R was registered only after 13 days and that the Tribunal failed to consider that the claimant wantonly suppressed the "accident register". It was pointed out that the Tribunal failed to consider that the appellant insurance company had referred the matter to CBCID for inquiry and the same is pending. It was also submitted that the appellant has deposited 50% of the award amount before the Tribunal as per the Motor Vehicle Act to prefer this appeal. 13. The above appeal came up for hearing on 17.09.2009. It was also submitted that the appellant has deposited 50% of the award amount before the Tribunal as per the Motor Vehicle Act to prefer this appeal. 13. The above appeal came up for hearing on 17.09.2009. At that time, the learned counsel for the insurance company informed the Court stating that the CBID Wing is conducting inquiry on the said claim case to find out the veracity of the claim. Hence, the matter was adjourned for three weeks. 14. Today, when the matter came up for further hearing i.e., 09.10.2012, the learned counsels for the insurance company had not given the stage or findings of the CBCID inquiry. 15. The learned counsel for the claimants argued that the injured had undergone treatment at different hospitals and also undergone a surgical operation and steel plates were fixed with screws, in the operated area. The doctor had assessed the disability sustained by the claimant as 41%. The medical expenses incurred by the claimant was about Rs.25,000/-. The same was proved through documentary evidence but the learned Tribunal had not granted adequate compensation to the injured person. The CBCID so far, had not called upon the injured person for enquiry. The so called 'enquiry' had been initiated only to evade payment of compensation. 16. On considering 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 said award. Further, this Court directs the appellant/insurance company to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, as per the Tribunal findings, subject to deduction of earlier deposits made, if any, as per this Court's earlier order. 17. 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.526 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 3rd Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. 18. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.526 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai, is confirmed, dated 07.03.2007. 18. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.526 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai, is confirmed, dated 07.03.2007. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.