Judgment : 1. The appellant / petitioner has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A.No.1065 of 2001, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.130 of 1996, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.130 of 1996, 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 on 16.07.1995, when the petitioner was travelling along with Arasappan and Ravindran in the 4th respondent's Jeep bearing Registration No.TAB-7079, driven by one Balasubramaniam and when the Jeep was proceeding on the Udumalai-Pollachi Main Road, the 2nd respondent's Van bearing Registration No.TN-41-A-5823, driven by the 1st respondent coming in the opposite direction and driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Jeep and caused the accident. As a result, the driver of the Jeep sustained injuries and died on the spot. The petitioner and two others sustained injuries and were admitted at Udumalai Government Hospital, wherein they received initial treatment and subsequently received treatment at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital. Due to injuries sustained by the petitioner, he is not able to do his work as before. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the respondents 1 to 4. The respondents 1 to 3 are the driver, owner and insurer of the Van bearing Registration No.TN-41-A-5823 and the 4th respondent is the owner of the Jeep bearing Registration No.TAB-7079. 3. The 3rd respondent in his counter has submitted that the driver of the Van had not driven the Van in a rash and negligent manner as alleged in the claim. The averments in the claim regarding nature of injuries, medical treatment taken and disability was also not admitted. It was submitted that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Was the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Van by the 1st respondent? and (2) Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation from the respondents? If so, what is the quantum? 5. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Was the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Van by the 1st respondent? and (2) Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation from the respondents? If so, what is the quantum? 5. In the same accident, two other claims had been filed by the petitioners in M.C.O.P.No.129 of 1996 and M.C.O.P.No.131 of 1996, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by them from the same respondents. Hence, on the request made by the counsel for their respective petitioners through a joint memo, a joint trial was conducted and common evidence was recorded in M.C.O.P.No.129 of 1996. 6. The petitioners in M.C.O.P.Nos.129 of 1996, 130 of 1996 and 131 of 1996 were examined as PW1 to PW3 respectively and the Doctors were examined as PW4 and PW5 and 32 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P32 namely: Ex.P1-Copy of F.I.R.; Ex.P2-Copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's report; Ex.P3-Copy of Criminal Court Judgment; Ex.P4-Copy of Wound certificate; Ex.P5-Medical report of Arasappan; Ex.P6-Certificate regarding facial disorientation of Arasappan; Ex.P7 & Ex.P8-Medical bills; Ex.P9-O.P.Chit pertaining to Natarajan; Ex.P10 to Ex.P13-Medical reports pertaining to Natarajan; Ex.P14-Medical bills; Ex.P15-Reports regarding leave for Natarajan; Ex.P16-Salary certificate of Natarajan; Ex.P17-Receipt for hired car charges; Ex.P18-X-rays; Ex.P19-O.P.Chit of Ravindran; Ex.P20-Wound Certificate; Ex.P21-Medical reports of Ravindran; Ex.P22-Medical bills; Ex.P23-Receipts for payment to attender; Ex.P24-Doctor receipts; Ex.P25-Reports regarding leave particulars of Ravindran; Ex.P26-Salary certificate of Ravindran; Ex.P27-Reports regarding leave for Ravindran; Ex.P28-Disability Certificate; Ex.P29-X-rays; Ex.P30-Disability certificate of Ravindran; Ex.P31-X-rays; and Ex.P32-Doctor's certificate. On the respondents' side, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 7. PW1 to PW3 had adduced evidence, which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim regarding manner of accident. They had deposed that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the 1st respondent and in support of their evidence, they had marked Exhibits P1 to P32. 8. On scrutiny of Ex.P1, it is seen that the F.I.R. had been filed against the 1st respondent and that subsequently the charge sheet had also been filed against him. The Tribunal further observed on scrutiny of Ex.P3, that the 1st respondent had admitted his guilt and paid the fine before the Criminal Court. 8. On scrutiny of Ex.P1, it is seen that the F.I.R. had been filed against the 1st respondent and that subsequently the charge sheet had also been filed against him. The Tribunal further observed on scrutiny of Ex.P3, that the 1st respondent had admitted his guilt and paid the fine before the Criminal Court. The Tribunal further observed that the respondents had not taken any steps to examine the 1st respondent to prove that the accident had been caused by the negligence of the Jeep driver. On scrutiny of Ex.P2, it is seen that the accident had not been caused due to any mechanism failure of the vehicles. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. 9. PW2 had adduced evidence that due to the accident, he had sustained fracture of bone below his right knee and also sustained injuries on his forehead and also sustained fracture of bone in his arm. He deposed that he had initially received treatment at Udumalpet Hospital and subsequently received treatment at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, wherein surgery was done and steel plates were affixed in his hands and legs. 10. PW4 Doctor had adduced evidence that he had examined the petitioner and found that due to the accident, the petitioner had sustained fracture of bones in his left arm, right leg and right arm and that a surgery was done on his right leg. He deposed that the strength and movements of muscles in his right hand and leg had been reduced and that the steel plates fixed had to be removed through another surgery. He deposed that the cost of surgery would be Rs.25,000/-. He deposed that the petition had sustained 53% disability in the accident. 11. The Tribunal on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- for medical expenses and for future medical expenses as per Ex.P14; Rs.25,000/- was awarded for disability of 53%; Rs.10,000/-was awarded for pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/- was awarded for nutrition; Rs.50,000/-was awarded under the head of loss of income during medical treatment and convalescence period. 11. The Tribunal on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- for medical expenses and for future medical expenses as per Ex.P14; Rs.25,000/- was awarded for disability of 53%; Rs.10,000/-was awarded for pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/- was awarded for nutrition; Rs.50,000/-was awarded under the head of loss of income during medical treatment and convalescence period. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,70,000/-as compensation to the petitioner and directed the respondents to deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim till date of payment of compensation, with costs, within a period of one month from the date of its order. 12. Not being satisfied by the award passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the award granted under pain and suffering was on the lower side as the appellant herein had taken treatment for fractures sustained in his right leg and right forearm for a long period. It was also contended that the award of Rs.75,000/-for medical expenses is not fair as the bills marked under this head amounted Rs.1,25,000/-. It was contended that the Tribunal after seeing that a further surgery should be conducted to remove the steel plates fixed in the fractured area ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-towards medical expenses. It was also contended that the award granted under loss of income was on the lower side. It was contended that the award of Rs.25,000/-for disability of 53% was also on the lower side and hence it was prayed for grant of additional compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 13. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that adequate compensation has already been granted by the Tribunal. The Doctor had assessed the disability at 53% which is on the higher side. The Tribunal had awarded compensation under the relevant heads namely disability, pain and suffering, medical expenses, nutrition, etc. As such, the appeal is not maintainable. 14. 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 and liability. As such, the appeal is not maintainable. 14. 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 and liability. However, the quantum of compensation awarded is on the lower side, since the claimant had undergone two surgical operations on his left leg and left hand and steel plates were fixed. Therefore, this Court reassesses the compensation as follows:- The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/-towards medical expenses and future medical expenses which is appropriate. Besides this, this Court grants compensation as follows:- Rs.53,000/- is granted towards disability; Rs.15,000/-is awarded towards pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/- towards transport; Rs.5,000/- towards nutrition; Rs.10,000/-towards attender charges; Rs.10,000/-towards loss of earning during medical treatment period; Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities and loss of comfort. In total, this Court awards Rs.2,03,000/- as compensation. After subtracting initial compensation of a sum of Rs.1,70,000/-, this Court awards Rs.33,000/-as additional compensation. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till date of deposit. This Court directs the 3rd respondent / United India Insurance Company Limited to deposit the said compensation amount within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order with interest. 15. After such a deposit having 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.130 of 1996, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. 16. In the result, the above appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.130 of 1996, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet, dated 06.11.2000, is modified. No costs.