Judgment :- 1. The appellant/claimant has filed a claim case in M.C.O.P.No.6 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District, against the respondents, stating that on 14.01.1998, at about 05.15 p.m., when she and her father and brother were waiting at the Nagagodu Junction Bus Stop for boarding a bus, the 1st respondent had driven the 2nd respondent's Mahindra Van, from south to North, on the Marthandam Kulasekaran road, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her. Immediately, she had been taken to the medical college hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, wherein she was admitted as an inpatient. Hence, the claimant has filed the claim petition claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-with interest. 2. The 3rd respondent/National Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and had denied the accident. It was submitted that the claimant had crossed the road in a rash and negligent manner and had invited the said accident. The averments in the claim regarding loss of earning capacity had been denied. It was also submitted that the claim is on the higher side. After considering the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: (1) Due to whose negligence did the accident happen?; (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation. On the side of the claimant, four witnesses have been examined and some documents were marked namely: F.I.R, rough sketch, observation mahazar, Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, Salary certificate, accident report, Trip Sheets(series), medical bills (series) and bills, disability certificates etc. On the side of the respondent, no witness and no document was marked. 3. PW.1/claimant had adduced evidence stating that when she and her father and brother were waiting at the bus stop to board the bus in order to go to Thiruvarambu, the 1st respondent had driven the Mahindra Van in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her. PW.1, stated that her brother had lodged a complaint against the 1st respondent before the concerned police station. She further stated that she had undergone treatment at Thiruvananthapuram Medical College hospital, wherein she had undergone treatment from 14.01.1998 to 29.01.1998 as inpatient. Her right side rib bones 2 to 4 had been fractured and the Psychometric arch bone and Casilla bone and right shoulder bone had been fractured. She further stated that she had undergone treatment at Thiruvananthapuram Medical College hospital, wherein she had undergone treatment from 14.01.1998 to 29.01.1998 as inpatient. Her right side rib bones 2 to 4 had been fractured and the Psychometric arch bone and Casilla bone and right shoulder bone had been fractured. A surgical operation was conducted on her right shoulder at Tirunelveli medical college hospital, she had further stated that she is a practicing Government doctor at Thiruvattaru Government Hospital. 4. PW.2, had adduced evidence stating that he is a doctor and that he and his wife i.e., PW.1 had conducted a Private Clinic. After the accident, his wife did not attend the clinic. In the result, women patients had not come to the clinic. As such, his wife had lost an income of a sum of Rs.20,000/-. PW.3, Doctor, had adduced evidence stating that he had examined the claimant and had found that her right chest rib bone 1 to 4 were fractured, as a result of which she had intolerable pain on her right chest. Besides this, her carlic bone on her right shoulder was also fractured. He had assessed the disability sustained by the claimant as 60%. PW.4, stated that the claimants right side jaw bone had also been fractured and there is a permanent scar on her upper lip. Hence, he assessed the disability on this count as 30%. 5. After, considering the evidence of the claimants side and on perusing the documents marked by them, the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 6. Not being satisfied with the said award, the claimant had filed the above appeal for additional compensation of a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-with interest. The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries and the same had been established through PW.3 and PW.4 evidence. After the accident, she could not attend the clinic. As such, she had lost her monthly income amounting to about Rs.20,000/-. The same was disclosed by her husband who was examined as PW.2. The learned counsel further argued that the claimant had sustained 90% disability. The same was confirmed through the evidence given by doctors namely PW.3 and PW.4. She had been hospitalised from 14.01.1998 to 19.01.1998, as inpatient and subsequently received treatment as an outpatient. The same was disclosed by her husband who was examined as PW.2. The learned counsel further argued that the claimant had sustained 90% disability. The same was confirmed through the evidence given by doctors namely PW.3 and PW.4. She had been hospitalised from 14.01.1998 to 19.01.1998, as inpatient and subsequently received treatment as an outpatient. During this period, she had undergone a surgical operation and steel plate was fixed in the operated area. Besides this, she underwent one more surgical operation at Government Hospital, Tirunelveli. After the accident, her physical condition did not permit her to do her normal work. Her face had been scarred due to the major operation. As such, her face had been disfigured and this is permanent in nature. The learned counsel further argued that the claimant had spent huge amount for medical expenses. This was not granted adequately by the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the insurance company argued that the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards nutrition; Rs.1,500/-towards damage to articles; The Tribunal had awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.25,000/-for medical expenses; Rs.23,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.50,000/-for disability respectively. Therefore, the award is a well considered one. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant argued that the Tribunal had not awarded compensation under the heads of transport, attendance charges, loss of income during medical treatment period and also for loss of comfort, loss of amenities due to disfigurement. An adequate compensation had not been granted under the head of disability, since the claimant had sustained 90% disability. The medical bills have not been properly considered by the Tribunal. 9. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the claimant had not been granted an adequate compensation. The medical bills have not been properly considered by the Tribunal. 9. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the claimant had not been granted an adequate compensation. Therefore, this Court grants compensation as follows: Rs.90,000/-is awarded under the head of disability; Rs.25,000/- is awarded under the head of pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/- awarded under the head of at tender charges; Rs.5,000/- is awarded under the head of transport; Rs.5,000/- is awarded under the head of nutrition; Rs.25,000/-is awarded under the head of medical expenses; Rs.30,000/-is awarded under the head of loss of earning during medical treatment and convalescence period; Rs.1,00,000/-is awarded under the head of disfigurement, loss of amenities and loss of comfort. In total, this Court awards Rs.2,85,000/-as compensation. After, deducting original compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., a sum of Rs.1,65,000/-, this Court grants an additional compensation of a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till date of payment of compensation. This Court, directs the respondent/National Insurance Company, to deposit the additional compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, as per this Courts finding, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. After such deposit has been made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the additional compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.6 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Kuzhithurai, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. 11. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.6 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, is modified, dated 18.08.2004, No costs.