JUDGMENT 1. The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A. (MD).No.623 of 2012, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.1261 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. 2. The petitioner, has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.1261 of 2008, claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-from the respondents, for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident. It was submitted that on 28.12.2006, at about 05.00 a.m., when the petitioner was travelling in the 1st respondents mini door van bearing registration No.TN-60C-8084, on the Salem to Madurai by pass road at Pasupathipalayam and proceeding to Manalmedu Market to purchase sheeps and goats, the 3rd respondents Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration No. TN-27N-1627, coming in the opposite direction, came on to the centre of the road and dashed against the 1st respondent's bus. Both the vehicles were driven by their drivers in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, without following traffic rules and regulations. Due to the accident, the petitioner sustained multiple grievous injuries. The petitioner took treatment as an inpatient from 28.12.2006 to 17.01.2007. After the accident, the petitioner is not able to do his work as he used to do before. At the time of accident, the petitioner was aged 35 years and was doing the business of selling sheep and goats and earning more than Rs.7,000/-per month. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim as against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents. The 1st respondent is the owner of the said van and the 2nd respondent is its insurer and the 3rd respondent is the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Salem. 3. The 2nd respondent, in his counter has submitted that the vehicle involved in the accident is a three wheeler auto rickshaw and intended to carry only goods. No person other than the driver can be carried in the said vehicle and premium to cover the risk of any person carried in the said vehicle is not covered under the policy of insurance and as such the 2nd respondent is not liable to indemnify the 1st respondent in respect of any liability arising out of the accident and the claim as against the respondent is not at all maintainable. 4. 4. The 3rd respondent, in his counter has submitted that the bus driver drove the bus slowly by observing all the traffic rules and regulations and that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the 1st respondent's van driver. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation. Nature of injuries was also not admitted. 5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed four issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the 1st respondent's van driver?; (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation? If, so what if the quantum?; (3) Who is liable to pay the compensation?; (4) To what other relief is the petitioner is entitled to get? 6. On the petitioners side, two witnesses were examined and 15 documents were marked as exhibits P1 to P15 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-medical certificate; Ex.P3-Ambulance bill; Ex.P4-wound certificate; Ex.P5-medical bills; Ex.P6-list of medical bills; Ex.P7-prescriptions; Ex.P8-scan; Ex.P9-scan report; Ex.P10-discharge summary; Ex.P11-Motor Vehicle Inspector's report; Ex.P13-rough sketch; Ex.P14-disability certificate and ex.P15-x ray. On the respondent's side, one witness was examined as RW.1 and one document namely the insurance policy was marked as Ex.R1. 7. PW.1, in his evidence had deposed that on 27.12.2006, when he was travelling in the 1st respondents Mini Door van bearing registration No.TN-60C-8084 and when it was proceeding on the Salem to Madurai bye pass road at about 05.00 a.m., in the morning, when the van was turned from north towards east direction and proceeding south, the 3rd respondent's bus had dashed behind the rear of the speeding van due to which the van had capsized. From a scrutiny of Ex.P1, F.I.R, it is seen that the complaint had been lodged against the driver of the 1st respondent's van. Hence, the tribunal, on scrutiny of evidence of PW.1 and F.I.R, held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 1st respondent's van. 8. PW.2, Dr. Athiappan, had adduced evidence that after examination of petitioner, medical records and taking x rays, he has found that the petitioner is unable to do his routine work and had assessed his partial permanent disability as 33%. The Tribunal observed that the age of the petitioner was 35 years as per ex.P4-wound certificate. 8. PW.2, Dr. Athiappan, had adduced evidence that after examination of petitioner, medical records and taking x rays, he has found that the petitioner is unable to do his routine work and had assessed his partial permanent disability as 33%. The Tribunal observed that the age of the petitioner was 35 years as per ex.P4-wound certificate. The Tribunal, on observing that no documentary evidence had been produced to prove the income of the petitioner held that the notional income of the petitioner is Rs.3,000/-per month. The Tribunal, on observing that the petitioner underwent a surgical operation and on opining that he would be unable to resume his duties for at least six months, awarded a compensation of Rs.18,000/-under the head of loss of income for six months. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,61,044/-as compensation under the head of medical expenses as per Ex.P5. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.3,300/-towards transport to hospital; Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment; Rs.20,000/-towards pain and suffering and Rs.66,000/-(33%xRs.2,000/-) under the head of partial permanent disability of 33%. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,68,344/-as compensation. 9. RW.1, Vimala Bhoopathy, had deposed that the 1st respondents Auto was a goods carrier and as such as three persons had travelled in the said auto, the conditions laid down in the policy of insurance had been breached and hence the 2nd respondent cannot be held liable to pay compensation. 10. However, the Tribunal on considering that the petitioner was travelling in the goods auto for purchase of goats and opining that the owner of such goods was permitted to travel in the auto, held that the petitioner had not breached the conditions of the policy of insurance and hence held both the 1st and 2nd respondents jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and dismissed the claim as against the 3rd respondent. The Tribunal, directed the 2nd respondent to deposit the said compensation of Rs.3,68,344/- on behalf of the 1st respondent, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till date of deposit, within one month from the date of its order. 11. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Madurai, has preferred the present appeal. 11. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Madurai, has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the tribunal has failed to note that the vehicle involved in the accident is a three wheeler auto rickshaw intended to carry only goods and no other person other than the driver can be carried in the said vehicle and no premium has been paid by the owner of the vehicle to cover the risk of any occupant of the said vehicle other than its driver. It was contended that the lower Court has failed to consider the admission of PW.1, that the driver of the bus was solely responsible for the accident on the sole premise that the F.I.R was registered against the driver of the auto rickshaw. It was contended that the lower court has failed to see that an F.I.R is not a substantive piece of evidence and that the author of the F.I.R was not examined as a witness in this case. It was contended that the lower court has failed to note that the copy of the rough sketch produced by the petitioner as ex.P13 shows the place of accident on the eastern extremity of the road and that the damage of the appellant's insured vehicle was only on its rear side according to the copy of the motor vehicle inspector's report marked as Ex.P11, while the bus had suffered damages on its front left side according to the copy of the motor vehicle inspector's report marked as Ex.P12. It was contended that the tribunal after ascertaining the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity and that the above procedure was not adopted by the lower court. It was pointed out that the lower Court failed to note that the doctor who examined and issued the wound and disability certificate only deposed that the injured was having 33% disability but has not specifically and scientifically stated that such disability was permanent or partially permanent. Hence, it was prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 12. Hence, it was prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 12. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant had sustained head injuries in the said accident and he had been operated on his skull, to remove the blood clot from the brain. After the accident, he had partial loss of memory. The doctor had examined the injured person and verified the entire medical documents and assessed the disability as 33%. The claimant thereafter he was shifted to Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai, wherein he had undergone medical treatment for a period of 20 days. 13. 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 findings arrived at for determining liability and quantum of compensation. This Court is of the further view that the tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,61,044/- under the head of medical expenses, on the basis of exhibits P5 and P6. As such, the balance compensation amount, awarded under the other heads are also reasonable. Therefore, this Court declines to interfere with the impugned award. It is seen from the records of the Court that this Court had imposed a condition on the appellant on 07.06.2012, to deposit 50% of the award amount. Now, this Court directs the appellant to deposit the balance compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.' 14. 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.1261 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, after filing memo, along with a copy of this order. 15. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.1261 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai is confirmed, dated 08.11.2011. No costs.