Judgment : 1. On 04.12.2003, at about 6.30 p.m., when the minor claimant namely Suganya was walking on the Gobi-Sathi Main road, the lorry bearing Registration No.KA-05-5787, driven by its driver in a negligent manner dashed against her. As a result, she had sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the father of the minor claimant had filed the claim petition against the owner and insurer of the lorry. 2. The Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and refuted the claim petition. The respondent denied that the accident had been caused by the driver of the lorry. The respondent further submits that as per the claimant's allegation that the accident took place on 04.12.2003, but the F.I.R. has been registered on 28.12.2003 and the Motor Vehicle Inspector had conducted inspection on 05.01.2004. As such, lot of irregularities in filing the claim. 3. On considering the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: (1) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused? and (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 4. On the side of the claimant, three witnesses were examined and 14 documents were marked as Exhibits namely F.I.R., Rough sketch, Wound certificate, Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, Charge sheet, Judgment copy, Taxi bills, School certificate, Medical bills, X-rays and Disability Certificate. On the side of the respondents, one witness was examined and no document was marked. 5. PW1 had adduced evidence that when his daughter was walking on the Gobi-Sathi Main road, on 04.12.2003, at about 6.30 p.m., the 1st respondent's lorry bearing Registration No.KA-05-5787, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against her. PW1 further stated that his daughter had been admitted at Government Hospital, Gobi and thereafter, she had been admitted at Government Hospital, Erode and again she had been admitted at KKS Private hospital, Gobi wherein she had been hospitalised as an inpatient. 6. PW2, the eyewitness had adduced evidence on the same lines of PW1 regarding manner of accident. RW1, driver had adduced evidence that he does not know about the criminal case levelled against him. PW1 further stated that his daughter has lost two of her teeth in her lower jaw and her lower lip had been torn. Besides this, she had sustained injuries on her head and right sole. Further, she did not attend school for about 90 days. 7. PW1 further stated that his daughter has lost two of her teeth in her lower jaw and her lower lip had been torn. Besides this, she had sustained injuries on her head and right sole. Further, she did not attend school for about 90 days. 7. PW3, Doctor who had examined the claimant and perused the medical records deposed that the disability sustained by claimant was 30%. On recording the evidence of the witnesses and on verifying the documents marked by the claimant, the Trial Court had granted a sum of Rs.1,21,600/-as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Against the said award, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. 8. The highly competent counsel argued that the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.90,000/- under the head of disability after adopting multiplier method, since the claimant had sustained minor injuries. Further, the F.I.R. had been lodged after 24 days delay. Besides this, the Motor Vehicle Inspector had conducted inspection after long delay. As such, some irregularities had been committed on the side of the claimants. PW2, is an interested witness and actually he had not witnessed the alleged accident. The Doctor had assessed the disability at 30% which is on the higher side. 9. The very competent counsel for the claimant vehemently argued that the driver of the lorry had committed the said accident. As such, the Criminal case has been levelled against the offending vehicle driver. The Criminal Court also had punished the driver for his negligent driving. The minor claimant had undergone medical treatment at three different hospitals as inpatient as well as outpatient. She had lost two of her teeth from the lower jaw and her lower lip had been torn. As such, she had sustained permanent disability and permanent disfigurement on her face. The claimant had spent a sum of Rs.20,600/- towards medical expenses. After the accident, the minor claimant could not take part in extra curricular activities and unable to concentrate on her studies as she is mentally affected. 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 conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. 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 conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. This Court is of the further view that as per the Criminal Court proceedings, the negligence had been fixed on the driver of the lorry and the said lorry had been insured with the Insurance Company. As such, the trial Court had decided the issue in an appropriate manner in favour of the claimants. Regarding quantum of compensation, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.90,000/-towards disability and this amount has been granted after adopting multiplier method, which is not pertinent in the instant case. Therefore, this Court restructures the compensation as follows:- Rs.20,600/- is awarded for medical expenses; Rs.60,000/-is awarded for disability; Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/- towards transport; Rs.5,000/- for attender charges charges; Rs.5,000/- for nutrition; and Rs.11,000/-towards loss of amenities and loss of comfort due to disfigurement, which is permanent in nature. As such, this Court confirms the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. This Court directed the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest. Now, the minor claimant, if she has attained the age of major, is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / (I Additional Subordinate Judge), Gobichettipalayam, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. If the minor claimant had not attained the age of a major, then the learned Judge is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount, with interest, as fixed deposit in a nationalised bank, in the Cumulative Deposit Scheme, in the name of minor claimant till she attains the age of a major and hand over the fixed deposit certificate to the father of the minor claimant. 12. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2005, dated 20.02.2006, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (I Additional Subordinate Judge), Gobichettipalayam, is confirmed. No costs.