Judgment : 1. The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in CMA (MD).No.2180 of 2005, against the judgment and decree passed in MACTOP No.1040 of 2001 dated 22.01.2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-Judge) Erode. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The respondent herein/claimant has filed the claim petition against the appellant herein and owner of the vehicle stating that on 03.08.2000, at about 12 noon when the claimant was walking on the Vellakovil main road, the Car bearing Registration No. TMC 6663, coming on the opposite direction and driven by its driver in a negligent manner, dashed against him. As a result, he had sustained injuries. Hence, the claim petition has been filed against the respondents and Rs.2,00,000/- was claimed as compensation. 3. The Insurance Company has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent stated that the said car has not been involved in the said accident. Further, the FIR has been registered after 6 days and the Motor Vehicle Inspector had conducted an enquiry after 20 days. Therefore, there is a delay in filing FIR on the side of the claimant. 4. On considering the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issued namely, (i) Whether the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent's vehicle? (2) whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 5. On the side of the claimant, three witnesses had been examined and 13 documents were marked, namely, FIR, Wound Certificate, Medical bills, Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, Observation Mohazar, Charge Sheet, Judgment copy of the Tribunal, University Certificate, Rough Sketch, X' ray and Disability Certificate. On the side of the respondent, two witnesses were examined and two documents were marked. 6. P.W.1, had adduced evidence that on 03.08.2000, at about 12 noon, when he was walking on the velakovil main road, the first respondent's car bearing registration No.TMC 6663, coming in the opposite direction and driven at a high speed and in a negligent manner, dashed against him. As a result, he had sustained injuries on his left leg, left shoulder, right leg and skull. P.W.2, Sub-Inspector of Police had adduced evidence that he had registered the criminal case against the driver of the car. As a result, he had sustained injuries on his left leg, left shoulder, right leg and skull. P.W.2, Sub-Inspector of Police had adduced evidence that he had registered the criminal case against the driver of the car. P.W.3, Doctor had adduced evidence that the claimant had undergone a surgical operation on his left hand, and he had assessed the disability at 25%. 7. R.W.4 had adduced evidence that the accident was committed by the driver of the car. On considering the evidence of the witnesses, the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.61,000/- as compensation to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the said vehicle had not been involved in the accident and the FIR has been registered after 6 days and the registration number of the car had not been mentioned in the First Information Report. Besides this, the Motor Vehicle Inspector had conducted enquiry only after 26 days. As such, there is a lapse on the side of the Sub-Inspector of Police and Motor Vehicle Inspector. Further, the claimant had sustained simple injuries. 9. The highly competent counsel for the claimant argued that the First Information Report has been levelled against the driver of the car and he has been punished by the Criminal Court. Further, the car has been covered under policy of insurance with the Insurance Company and was covered vide valid documents, namely, RC, F.C., and Insurance policy. Therefore, the Tribunal had considered all the documentary facts and oral evidence in an appropriate manner and passed the award and as such there is no lacuna in the award. 10. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusion arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. This Court is of the further view that the driver of the car was punished by the criminal court for his negligent driving and the offending vehicle has been insured with the appellant herein. This Court is of the further view that the driver of the car was punished by the criminal court for his negligent driving and the offending vehicle has been insured with the appellant herein. It is seen from the evidence that the Doctor assessed the disability of claimant at 25% and that the claimant had undergone a surgical operation and as such the quantum of compensation awarded is also reasonable. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the appeal. As such, this Court confirms the award passed by the Tribunal. 11. This Court directed the appellant/insurance company to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest. The same has been complied with and the claimant was permitted to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount. Now, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire balance compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of MACTOP No.1040 of 2001 dated 22.01.2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-Judge) Erode. 12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in MACTOP No.1040 of 2001 dated 22.01.2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-Judge) Erode is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.