JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant / third respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2005, made in M.C.O.P.No.127 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II-Additional Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner has filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.127 of 2002, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II-Additional Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam, claiming 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 the petitioner was working as a cleaner in Sathya Roadways Transport Company, Tiruppur. On 30.05.2000, when the petitioner was proceeding as a cleaner in the company lorry bearing registration No.TN39 V3933, loaded with banyans and when the lorry was proceeding from Tiruppur to Bangalore, on the Sathy Main Road, and when it was proceeding from south to north near Kariyakaliamman Temple in Nallur Village, the driver of the lorry drove it at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and as a result, the vehicle capsized into a pit, while the driver was negotiating a curved road. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and was initially admitted at Sathiyamangalam Government Hospital and subsequently received treatment at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital. Later on, he received treatment at Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore. At the time of accident, the petitioner was working as a cleaner under the second respondent and earning Rs.1,500/- per month as salary and Rs.900/- as batta. Due to the disability sustained by him, he is not able to do his work as before. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the respondents 1 to 3, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.TN39 V3933. 3. The third respondent, in his counter affidavit, has submitted that the accident had occurred only due to negligence of the petitioner, who was sitting in the side seat of the cabin, without closing the door on his left and as such the third respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. It was submitted that as four persons, other than the driver of the lorry had been seated in the cabin of the lorry, the policy conditions of insurance had been violated and as such the petitioner cannot claim compensation. It was submitted that as four persons, other than the driver of the lorry had been seated in the cabin of the lorry, the policy conditions of insurance had been violated and as such the petitioner cannot claim compensation. The averments in the claim regarding age, income, occupation, nature of injuries sustained, medical treatment taken was also not admitted. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: i. Due to whose negligence was the accident caused? and ii. Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation which he is entitled to get? 5. On the petitioner's side, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and 12 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P12 namely Ex.P1-Copy of FIR, Ex.P2-Copy of Charge Sheet, Ex.P3-Copy of M.V.I's report, Ex.P4-Copy of Rough Sketch, Ex.P5-Copy of Wound Certificate, Ex.P6-Discharge Summary, Ex.P7-Medical Bills, Ex.P8-Copy of Accident Register, Ex.P9 -Copy of Criminal Court Judgment, Ex.P10-Receipts for fine of Car, Ex.P11-Disability Certificate and Ex.P12-X'rays. On the respondents' side, one witness was examined as R.W.1 and one document namely copy of Insurance Policy was marked as Ex.R1. 6. P.W.1, the petitioner had adduced evidence, which is corroborative of the statements made by him in the claim regarding manner of accident and in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. The Tribunal observed from the evidence of P.W.1 that the petitioner had not worked as a cleaner in the second respondent's lorry and that he had travelled as a passenger, when the lorry was going via Puliampatti. However, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of evidence of P.W.1 and on scrutiny of Ex.P1 FIR, Ex.P2 Charge Sheet, Ex.P4 Rough Sketch and Ex.P9 Criminal Court Judgment held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the first respondent. 7. R.W.1 Pushpanathan had adduced evidence that the petitioner had not travelled as a cleaner of the vehicle and that he had travelled as a gratuitous passenger. He deposed that a person had been seated in the cabin of the lorry, other than the driver, which is violative of the conditions of insurance policy. 7. R.W.1 Pushpanathan had adduced evidence that the petitioner had not travelled as a cleaner of the vehicle and that he had travelled as a gratuitous passenger. He deposed that a person had been seated in the cabin of the lorry, other than the driver, which is violative of the conditions of insurance policy. He further deposed that as the accident had been caused only by the negligence of the deceased, who had not closed the door of the lorry and as such the third respondent is not liable to pay compensation. 8. The Tribunal observed that the petitioner had travelled as a gratuitous passenger and had violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy of the vehicle. However, the Tribunal on observing that the second respondent's vehicle had been insured with the third respondent Insurance Company at the time of accident, held that the third respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and then recover the same from the first and second respondents by initiating separate recovery proceedings against them. 9. P.W.1 had further adduced evidence that due to the accident his right leg joint had been displaced and that the nerves going to his toes of his right sole had been crushed and a nerve in his ears had also been cut. He had further stated that he had sustained injury on his head and middle finger of left hand and that he had taken first aid at Sathya Government Hospital and subsequently received treatment at Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore, wherein he had taken treatment as an inpatient for six days and that a surgery was done on his right sole, right leg joint and ears. 10. P.W.2 Dr.A.K.Thambiraj had adduced evidence that he had examined the petitioner and scrutinized the medical records and that on taking X'rays, he had assessed the disability sustained by the petitioner as 28% and in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P11 disability certificate and Ex.P12 X'ray. 11. The Tribunal, on observing that no documentary evidence had been marked to prove the income of the petitioner held that the notional income of the petitioner was Rs.2,200/-per month. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P5 held that the age of the petitioner was 19 years. 11. The Tribunal, on observing that no documentary evidence had been marked to prove the income of the petitioner held that the notional income of the petitioner was Rs.2,200/-per month. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P5 held that the age of the petitioner was 19 years. The Tribunal, on holding that the disability sustained by the petitioner was 25%, awarded a sum of Rs.1,05,600/- as compensation under the head of disability (Rs.2,200/- X 12 X 16 X 25/100), Rs.13,500/-was awarded for medical expenses as per exhibit marked as Ex.P7, Rs.5,000/-was awarded for transport expenses as per Ex.P10, Rs.15,000/-was awarded for pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- was awarded for nutrition. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,44,100/-as compensation to the petitioner and directed the third respondent on behalf of the first and second respondents to pay the said sum together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, with costs, within a period of one month, from the date of it's order. The third respondent was permitted to recover the same from the first and second respondents by initiating recovery proceedings against them separately. 12. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the third respondent Insurance company had preferred the present appeal. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal, after having found that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger, erred in directing the appellant to pay compensation to the claimant and then recover the same from the owner and driver of the vehicle. It was contended that the award granted under the heads of transport, loss of earnings and pain and suffering were erroneous and that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the claimant at Rs.2,200/- without any basis. Hence, it was prayed to set aside the award passed as against the appellant. 14. The highly competent counsel for the claimant argued that the FIR has been registered against the driver of the lorry and also marked rough sketch, wherein it is seen from the tyre mark that the lorry went on the wrong side of the road. The claimant had undergone treatment at a private hospital, as an inpatient and had incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs.13,500/-. The claimant had undergone treatment at a private hospital, as an inpatient and had incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs.13,500/-. The doctor had assessed the disability at 28% since the claimant had sustained bone fracture injuries on his right sole and a surgical operation had been conducted. Therefore, the Tribunal had adopted multiplier method and granted the said compensation amount. 15. 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 regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. However, the Tribunal had awarded compensation after adopting multiplier method which is improper in the instant case. Hence, this Court restructures the compensation as follows: For disability : Rs.56,000/- For medical expenses : Rs.13,500/- For pain and suffering : Rs.15,000/- For loss of earning during Medical treatment period Rs.10,000/- For transport : Rs. 5,000/- For attender charges : Rs. 5,000/- For nutrition : Rs. 5,000/- For loss of amenities and loss of comfort (since a surgical operation had been conducted on his right sole and his normal height has been affected.) : Rs.34,600/- 16. This Court is of further view that the FIR has been registered against the driver of the lorry and the vehicle had been insured with the Insurance Company. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised a point that four persons in the cabin of the lorry and the same had not been proved through oral or documentary evidence. The pay and recovery theory adopted by the Tribunal is appropriate in the instance case, as the petitioner is a third party. 17. This Court directs the appellant Insurance Company herein to comply with the impugned order of the Tribunal, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, by way of depositing the compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, subject to the earlier deposited amounts. 18. After such deposit having been made, the first respondent/claimant is at liberty to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.127 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II-Additional Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Order. 19. 18. After such deposit having been made, the first respondent/claimant is at liberty to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.127 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II-Additional Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Order. 19. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and decree dated 09.09.2005, made in M.C.O.P.No.127 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II-Additional Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.