Judgment 1. On 26.02.2002, at about 5.30 p.m., when the claimant was proceeding on his bicycle on the G.N.T. Road, the Tata Sumo Car bearing Registration No.TN-22-D-3578, coming from the opposite direction and driven in a negligent manner had dashed against one Auto and against his cycle. As a result, he had sustained injuries. Hence, the claim has been filed against the owner and insurance company of the Car. 2. The Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent submitted that the driver of the 1st respondent's Car had not committed the accident in a negligent manner. Further, the respondent denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income, occupation of claimant, nature of injuries and mode of treatment. The driver of the Car was not possessing an effective driving licence for driving the Car. 3. The Tribunal had framed two issues namely: (1) Whether the accident was caused by the negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent's Car? and (2) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation? In the said case, another claim has been filed by the injured petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.53 of 2003. Hence, the Tribunal conducted joint trial. In this case, the claimant was examined as PW2 and the Doctor was examined as PW3. On the side of the respondents, no oral evidence and no documentary evidence was produced. 4. PW2 had adduced evidence that he had sustained bone fracture injuries, on his left leg and face, head and skull. He deposed that his bicycle was also damaged and that he was hospitalised for a period of 19 days at G.M. Hospital, Ambattur, wherein a surgical operation was conducted and steel rod was fixed. He had been involved in the construction work. PW3, Doctor had adduced evidence that the claimant had sustained 65% disability and his left leg had been shortened by 1 cms. PW2, further stated that he had spent a sum of Rs.65,485/- towards medical expenses. PW1, the injured petitioner in connected O.P. had adduced evidence that on 26.02.2002, at about 5.30 p.m., when he was walking on the G.N.T. Road, the 1st respondent's Car bearing Registration No.TN-09-Y-9128, driven by its driver in a negligent manner, had dashed against him as well as the cyclist, i.e. the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.610 of 2003. 5. PW1, the injured petitioner in connected O.P. had adduced evidence that on 26.02.2002, at about 5.30 p.m., when he was walking on the G.N.T. Road, the 1st respondent's Car bearing Registration No.TN-09-Y-9128, driven by its driver in a negligent manner, had dashed against him as well as the cyclist, i.e. the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.610 of 2003. 5. On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by the claimant, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,76,985/-as compensation, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Against the said award, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently argued that the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-under the head of loss of earning and had again awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/-for disability, which is not pertinent in the instant case. Further, the cyclist had also contributed negligence. 6. The very competent counsel for the claimant argued that the Criminal case has been registered against the driver of the offending car and the said Car had been insured with the Insurance Company. As such, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation since the negligence has been fastened on the driver. The learned counsel further submits that the claimant had sustained 65% disability and a surgical operation had been conducted. After the accident, he is unable to do his avocation as construction worker. 7. 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 had not been properly assessed. Hence, this Court reassesses the compensation as follows:- Rs.65,485/- towards medical expenses; Rs.15,000/-towards pain and suffering; Rs.97,500/- towards disability; Rs.10,000/- towards transport; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of earning during medical treatment period; Rs.10,000/- for nutrition and Rs.10,000/-for attender charges. In total, this Court awards Rs.2,22,985/-as compensation as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. As such, the compensation has been scaled down from Rs.2,76,985/- to Rs.2,22,985/-. The rate of interest is unaltered. 8. This Court directed the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest. In total, this Court awards Rs.2,22,985/-as compensation as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. As such, the compensation has been scaled down from Rs.2,76,985/- to Rs.2,22,985/-. The rate of interest is unaltered. 8. This Court directed the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest. Now, this Court permits the claimant to withdraw the modified compensation amount, as mentioned above, with proportionate interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.610 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Thiruvallure, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order. Likewise, the insurance company is at liberty to withdraw the excess compensation amount with proportionate interest thereon, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order. 9. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.610 of 2003, dated 09.11.2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Thiruvallure, is modified. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.