Judgment 1. The appellant/second respondent has preferred the present appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 14.12.2004 and made in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- On 06.06.2003, at about 04.20 p.m., the claimant was proceeding along with his wife and minor son, on his TVS50 motorcycle bearing registration No. TAL 8167, on the Krishnagiri-Hosur Road and at that point of time, the first respondent's tempo van bearing registration No.TN05 A3939 driven by it's driver in a negligent manner, as a result the claimant and his wife sustained injuries and hence the claimant had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, against the owner and insurer of the vehicle for compensation to him. 3. The second respondent Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The second respondent had stated that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Further, the second respondent denied that the accident had been committed by the driver of the tempo van. The claimant had ridden the motorcycle along with his wife and son as pillion riders and as such the rider of the motorcycle had lost his balance and invited the said accident. The second respondent denied the age, income and occupation, period of medical treatment and expenses. 4. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: i. Whether the accident had been committed by the driver of the first respondent in a negligent manner? and ii. Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation. If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 5. On the petitioner's side three witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and ten documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P10 namely FIR, wound certificate, discharge medical summary, copy of the policy, medical bills, transport bills, scans and disability certificates. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 6. 5. On the petitioner's side three witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and ten documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P10 namely FIR, wound certificate, discharge medical summary, copy of the policy, medical bills, transport bills, scans and disability certificates. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 6. P.W.1 had adduced evidence stating that on 06.06.2003, at about 04.20 p.m., he was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No. TAL 8167, on the Krishnagiri-Hosur Main Road, along with his wife and minor son and at that point of time, the first respondent's driver had driven a Tempo van bearing registration No.TN05 A3939, from the opposite direction, at high speed in a negligent manner and dashed against him. 7. Further, P.W.1 had stated that he had undergone preliminary medical treatment at Government Hospital, Hosur, thereafter he had been referred to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Bangalore, wherein he had undergone surgical operation on his left leg and also he had sustained grievous injuries on his skull and as a result he lost his sensitivity. He had spent a sum of Rs.38,852/- towards medical expenses. 8. P.W.2 Neurology Doctor had adduced evidence that the claimant sustained injuries in his brain and blood clotting was formed in his brain. The left side of the skull bone was fractured and there is no sensitivity on the left side of the claimant. The Doctor had assessed the disability as 30%. 9. P.W.3 Ortho Doctor had adduced evidence stating that the claimant's left leg two bones had fractured and his knee joint and both bones had malunited and the left leg had been shortened by one inch and he assessed the disability as 40%. 10. After considering the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.4,30,850/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Against the said award, the second respondent Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. 11. The highly competent counsel for the appellant argued that in the said accident two vehicles had been involved, as such contributory negligence has to be attributed in the instant case. This was not considered by the Trial Court. The claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle along with two pillion riders as such he lost his balance and caused the accident. The highly competent counsel for the appellant argued that in the said accident two vehicles had been involved, as such contributory negligence has to be attributed in the instant case. This was not considered by the Trial Court. The claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle along with two pillion riders as such he lost his balance and caused the accident. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- under the head of disability and again the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,02,000/- towards injuries, which is irrelevant and hence the very competent counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant had sustained grievous injuries in his brain and blood had clotted inside the brain and as such the nerves system is affected. Apportion of the bone on his skull was fractured as a result the claimant has lost his sensitivity. The Doctor had assessed a total disability of 70%. The claimant had undergone a surgical operation on his left leg and the fractured bone is malunited and the left leg had been shortened by one inch. The learned counsel requests the Court to confirm the award as there is no lapse in the said order. 12. 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 conclusion arrived at regarding negligence and liability. However, the quantum of compensation had not been properly assessed. Hence, this Court reassesses the compensation and scales down the same as follows: i. Rs.38,850/- towards medical expenses, ii. Rs.1,40,000/- towards disability, iii. Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, iv. Rs.10,000/- towards attender charges, v. Rs.15,000/- towards transport expenses, vi. Rs.10,000/- towards nutrition, vii. Rs.25,000/- towards loss of earning during medical and convalescing periods, viii. Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities, loss of comfort and left leg shortened by one inch, which are of permanent nature, besides as per Doctor's evidence the claimants left side skull bone was fractured and blood was clotting in the brain and left leg fracture bone is malunited. In total, this Court awards Rs.3,63,850/-as compensation as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. The rate of interest i.e., 9% as fixed by the Trial Court remains unaltered, since it is relevant. 13. In total, this Court awards Rs.3,63,850/-as compensation as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. The rate of interest i.e., 9% as fixed by the Trial Court remains unaltered, since it is relevant. 13. At the time of admission of this appeal, this Court directed the appellant Insurance Company to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest. Now, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount of Rs.3,63,850/- with proportionate interest thereon, as per this Court's modified order, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Order. Likewise, the appellant Insurance Company is at liberty to withdraw the excess compensation amount with proportionate interest thereon, after filing a memo. 14. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed and the Judgment and Decree dated 14.12.2004 and made in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, is modified. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.