Judgment : 1. The claimant and the Insurance Company in M.C.O.P.No.240 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court-IV), Poonamallee, have preferred the above appeals in C.M.A.SR.No.54493 of 2007 and C.M.A.No.3400 of 2008 respectively, against the Judgment and Decree dated 05.03.2007. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- On 15.03.2005, at about 03.15 p.m., when the claimant was working at his workshop, situated at G.S.T.Road, a van bearing registration No.TN01 V4275, driven by it's driver in a reckless manner, had dashed against an auto-rickshaw, which was going ahead of it and due to which the driver of the vehicle had lost his control and subsequently dashed it against the claimant and his workshop. As a result, the claimant had sustained injuries. Hence, he had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.240 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court-IV), Poonamallee, claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-as compensation, against the owner and insurer of the vehicle. 3. The Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and opposed the claim petition and denied that the driver of the van bearing registration No.TN01 V4275 had driven it in a negligent manner and dashed against an auto-rickshaw and subsequently at the claimant and his shop. Further, they had denied the averments made in the claim petition regarding age, occupation, income, period of treatment, disability and damage caused to the claimant's shop. Further, they had stated that the driver of the van did not possess a valid driving licence. 4. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed three issues namely: i. Whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent's driver? ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any claim? and iii. If so, how much? 5. On the claimant's side three witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and eleven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P11 namely FIR, discharge and medical summaries, medical bills, equipment bills, photos, disability certificate and X'ray. On the respondents' side no oral evidence was let in and no documentary evidence was marked. 6. and iii. If so, how much? 5. On the claimant's side three witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and eleven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P11 namely FIR, discharge and medical summaries, medical bills, equipment bills, photos, disability certificate and X'ray. On the respondents' side no oral evidence was let in and no documentary evidence was marked. 6. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that on 15.03.2005, at about 03.15 p.m., when he was working at his workshop, situated at G.S.T.Road, a van bearing registration No.TN01 V4275, driven by it's driver in a reckless manner, had dashed against an auto-rickshaw, which was going ahead of it and due to which the driver had lost his control and subsequently dashed it against him and his workshop. Further, he had adduced evidence that due to the said accident, he had sustained grievous injuries and he took treatment at Deepam Hospital, Tambaram and Government Hospital as an inpatient for 23 days. Further, he had sustained injuries on his right forearm, fracture of clavicle left, fracture of rib left and multiple lacerated injuries and a surgical operation had been conducted on his forearm. 7. P.W.2 Doctor had adduced evidence that a surgical operation was conducted on the claimant's thigh bone and a steel rod had been fixed in the operated portion and a steel plate was also fixed in the displaced knee cap. The fractured fibula bone was also malunited. He had certified that the claimant had sustained 65% disability. 8. P.W.3 Balu, who was a worker under the claimant, had adduced evidence that the claimant was running a blacksmith Workshop on G.S.T.Road and he was earning a sum of Rs.400/- per day. 9. On considering the evidences of the witnesses and on scrutinizing the documents marked by the claimant and on arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, as compensation to the claimant. 10. Against the said Award, the claimant and the Insurance Company, have preferred the above appeals in C.M.A.SR.No.54493 of 2007 and C.M.A.No.3400 of 2008 respectively. 11. 10. Against the said Award, the claimant and the Insurance Company, have preferred the above appeals in C.M.A.SR.No.54493 of 2007 and C.M.A.No.3400 of 2008 respectively. 11. The highly competent counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has argued that the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/-under the head of pain and suffering, Rs.65,000/- under the head of disability, Rs.60,000/-under the head of loss of earning and Rs.30,000/- under the head of loss of earning capacity, which are redundant in the instant case. Further, the claimant had undergone treatment at Government Hospital and therefore, the medical bills marked by the claimant are not bonafide. 12. The highly competent counsel appearing for the claimant/first respondent has vehemently argued that the claimant had sustained 65% disability and as such he is entitled to get compensation of a sum of Rs.1,30,000/-. But, the Tribunal had granted only a sum of Rs.60,000/-. Further, the claimant had undergone two surgical operations on his thigh and knee. After the accident, the claimant is unable to run his blacksmith business. Therefore, his avocation has been totally affected. Further, the Tribunal had not granted adequate compensation under the other relevant heads. Therefore, the claimant has filed C.M.A.SR.No.54493 of 2007 and has sought for additional compensation of a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. 13. 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. This Court is of the view that FIR has been registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and the said vehicle had been insured with the appellant Insurance Company. Therefore, the Tribunal had decided the negligence and liability issues in an appropriate manner. The quantum of compensation awarded is also adequate. However, the heads under which the compensation has been awarded has to be modified. Therefore, this Court restructures the compensation as follows: i. Rs.1,30,000/- towards disability, ii. Rs.1,53,000/- towards medical expenses, iii. Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, iv. Rs.25,000/- towards damages, v. Rs.10,000/- towards transport, vi. Rs.10,000/- towards attender charges, vii. Rs.10,000/- towards nutrition, viii. Rs.15,000/- towards loss of earning during medical treatment and convalescence period, and ix. Rs.32,000/- towards loss of amenities and loss of comfort, which is permanent in nature. Rs.1,53,000/- towards medical expenses, iii. Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, iv. Rs.25,000/- towards damages, v. Rs.10,000/- towards transport, vi. Rs.10,000/- towards attender charges, vii. Rs.10,000/- towards nutrition, viii. Rs.15,000/- towards loss of earning during medical treatment and convalescence period, and ix. Rs.32,000/- towards loss of amenities and loss of comfort, which is permanent in nature. As such, the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal is confirmed. 14. This Court had already directed the appellant Insurance Company to deposit a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- with proportionate interest thereon. Now, this Court directs the Insurance Company to deposit the balance compensation amount with interest as per the Trial Court's findings, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 15. After such a deposit having been made, it is open to the claimant, to withdraw the entire compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.240 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court-IV), Poonamallee, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Order. 16. In the result, the above civil miscellaneous appeal in C.M.A.No.3400 of 2008 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and civil miscellaneous appeal in C.M.A.SR.No.54493 of 2007 filed by the claimant is also dismissed and the Judgment and decree dated 05.03.2007, made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.240 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court-IV), Poonamallee, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There is no order as to costs.