Judgment R. Banumathi, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by apportionment of 50% liability upon the Appellant-Claimant and also the quantum of compensation awarded in M.C.O.P.No.138 of 2007 dt. 6.10.2009 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Karaikal, Appellant-Claimant has filed this appeal. 2. Brief facts are that on 16.11.2006 at 17.45 hours, Claimant was driving Maruthi WagonR car bearing registration No.PY-02 B 7034 on Pondy-Cuddalore ECR road. When the car was nearing Marine Academy Training Centre at Peria Kattupalayam, the Eicher mini lorry bearing registration No.TN-32 C 2476 driven by the 1st Respondent, owned by the 2nd Respondent, insured with 3rd Respondent-Insurance Company in the opposite direction in a rash and negligence manner from south to north and dashed the Maruthi WagonR car. Due to the impact, Claimant and the Maruthi WagonR car were smashed and Claimant's leg and hip were badly smashed and Claimant also sustained multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, after the accident, Claimant was taken to Mahatma Gandhi Hospitals at Kirummampakkam where he was given first aid. Thereafter, Claimant was admitted in MIOT Hospitals, Chennai for further treatment and had taken treatment as inpatient for 92 days in three spells. Regarding the accident, a criminal case in Crime No.253 of 2006 under Sections 279 and 338 of Reddichavadi Police Station was registered against Eicher mini lorry driver. The Claimant studied B.E. Degree in Mechanical Engineering. At the time of accident, Claimant was working as Engineer in Petron Engineering Construction Limited, Mumbai and was earning Rs.9,700/- per month. He was also awaiting job in abroad. Stating that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of Eicher mini lorry driver, Claimant has filed the Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.48,00,000/-. 3. Denying the manner of accident, 3rd Respondent-Insurance Company has filed counter contending that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the wheel of Maruthi WagonR car and that the owner and insurer of the Maruthi Wagon (R) car are necessary parties. 3rd Respondent-Insurance Company has also denied the medical expenses incurred and the percentage of disability suffered by the Appellant-Claimant and the compensation claimed by the Appellant-Claimant is excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, Appellant-Claimant examined himself as P.W.1. Dr. Muthaiyan was examined as P.W.2. Thilagavathi, mother of Claimant was examined as P.W.3. Exs.P1 to P54 were marked. 3rd Respondent-Insurance Company has also denied the medical expenses incurred and the percentage of disability suffered by the Appellant-Claimant and the compensation claimed by the Appellant-Claimant is excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, Appellant-Claimant examined himself as P.W.1. Dr. Muthaiyan was examined as P.W.2. Thilagavathi, mother of Claimant was examined as P.W.3. Exs.P1 to P54 were marked. On the side of Respondents, the then Divisional Manager of 3rd Respondent-Insurance Company viz., Subramaniam was examined as R.W.1. The driver of Eicher mini lorry, 1st Respondent was examined as R.W.2. Exs.R1 to R4 were marked. 5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal held that both the drivers of Maruthi WagonR car and Eicher mini lorry are equally responsible for the accident and apportioned the liability in the ratio of 50% : 50%. Considering the injuries sustained by the Appellant-Claimant and the treatment undergone by the Claimant in various spells and also taking the disability at 87%, Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.14,00,817/- as under:- Medical expenses Rs.12,18,365.00 Permanent disability Rs.1,00,000.00 Extra-nourishment and Attendant Charges Rs.25,000.00 Transport Charges Rs.57,452.00 Total Rs.14,00,817.00 Tribunal has apportioned the compensation of Rs.14,00,817/-in the ratio 50% : 50% between the injured Claimant and the Eicher mini lorry. 6. Mr. G.K. Ilanthirayan, learned counsel for Appellant-Claimant submitted that Tribunal erred in holding the negligence on the part of both the Claimant as well as the 1st Respondent, who is the driver of Eicher mini lorry and fixed the compensation payable by the 3rd Respondent only at 50% of the total compensation awarded. Learned counsel would submit that without any piece of materials to show that Claimant's negligence is also a reason for the accident, Tribunal held that the accident was head on collision between Maruthi WagonR car and Eicher mini lorry. It was further submitted that Tribunal erred in holding that in Ex.P1-FIR it was stated that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st Respondent and to that extent the charge sheet was also laid against the 1st Respondent and the 1st Respondent admitted his guilt and paid fine. 7. Per contra, Mr. S. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for 3rd Respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the accident was due to head on collision and that the Tribunal has rightly fastened liability upon both the drivers in the ratio of 50% : 50%. 8. 7. Per contra, Mr. S. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for 3rd Respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the accident was due to head on collision and that the Tribunal has rightly fastened liability upon both the drivers in the ratio of 50% : 50%. 8. Negligence - In his evidence, P.W.1-injured Claimant has stated that he was proceeding from north to south keeping his left and proceeding in the eastern side and at that time the Eicher mini lorry bearing registration No.TN-32 C 2476 which was coming in the opposite direction from south to north driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner swerved to eastern side and hit against Maruthi WagonR car and that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of Eicher mini lorry driver. 9. The then Inspector of 3rd Respondent-Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1, who had spoken about the inspection of the place of accident and preparation of rough sketch. Ex.R1 is the report given by R.W.1. 1st Respondent, driver of Eicher mini lorry was examined as R.W.2. In his evidence R.W.2 has stated that he was driving the mini lorry from Chidambaram towards Pondicherry and at that time the Claimant who was driving Maruthi WagonR car drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and crossed the median and hit against the mini lorry and that the accident was due to negligence of the Claimant. Upon consideration of the evidence, Tribunal held that both the drivers contributed to the cause of accident and apportioned the liability in the ratio of 50% : 50%. 10. The Tribunal proceeded under the mistaken impression as if the Eicher mini lorry i.e. from north to south and only the WagonR car which the Claimant was driving was proceeding from south to north. The mistake in the direction appears to have led the Tribunal to arrive at a conclusion that the Claimant was also responsible for the accident and the Tribunal apportioned 50% negligence on the Claimant. 11. At the time of accident, Claimant was proceeding in WagonR car from north to south; whereas the Eicher mini lorry was proceeding from south to north. By perusal of Ex.R3-rough sketch, it is seen that Eicher mini lorry swerved to the eastern side and hit against the WagonR car. 11. At the time of accident, Claimant was proceeding in WagonR car from north to south; whereas the Eicher mini lorry was proceeding from south to north. By perusal of Ex.R3-rough sketch, it is seen that Eicher mini lorry swerved to the eastern side and hit against the WagonR car. The Eicher mini lorry which was proceeding from south to north to proceed in the correct direction ought to have proceeded on the western side of the road. By perusal of Ex.R3-rough sketch, it is seen that Eicher mini lorry swerved to the eastern side and hit against the WagonR car which the Claimant was driving. 12. As pointed out earlier, only the Eicher mini lorry appears to have proceeded to the wrong side and hit against the WagonR car. Ex.P1-FIR was also registered against the driver of Eicher mini lorry driver and charge sheet was also filed against Eicher mini lorry driver i.e. the 1st Respondent-R.W.1. It is stated that R.W.1-driver of Eicher mini lorry had admitted his guilt and paid fine which is one of the aspects to be taken into account. By consideration of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal erred in apportioning 50% liability upon the Claimant. Therefore, we are of the view that the finding of the Tribunal that both the drivers contributed to the accident and apportioned the liability in the ratio of 50% : 50% is set aside. It is held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of R.W.1-driver of Eicher mini lorry and that the owner and insurer of Eicher mini lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay entire compensation to the Appellant-Claimant. 13. Quantum of compensation - Learned counsel for Claimant submitted that Tribunal erred in considering Exs.P45 to P48-discharge summaries that Claimant was admitted in the hospital for more than 92 days as inpatient in various occasions and had undergone surgeries for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. It was submitted that in the accident, Claimant's leg and hip were crushed and he was unable to move even for his natural calls. Learned counsel further submitted that when P.W.2-Doctor has assessed the disability at 87%, Tribunal ought to have award more amount for permanent disability. It was submitted that in the accident, Claimant's leg and hip were crushed and he was unable to move even for his natural calls. Learned counsel further submitted that when P.W.2-Doctor has assessed the disability at 87%, Tribunal ought to have award more amount for permanent disability. It was also submitted that Tribunal has not awarded any amount for pain and suffering and that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is to be enhanced. 14. In the accident, Claimant had sustained ipsilateral communited fracture neck and segmental fracture shaft of femur right side and had taken treatment in Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Kirumampakkam on 16.11.2006 and discharged on 17.11.2006. Ex.P11 is the wound certificate, wherein it was mentioned that the injuries sustained by the Claimant was grievous in nature. Thereafter, Appellant-Claimant was admitted in MIOT hospitals, Chennai on 17.11.2006 as inpatient and discharged on 01.1.2007. Ex.P5 is the discharge summary, wherein it was stated that Appellant-Claimant was diagnosed for communited fracture shaft of femur right and unstable communited fracture neck of femur right. Again on 28.3.2007, Appellant-Claimant was admitted in MIOT hospital and discharged on 23.4.2007. Ex.P46 is the discharge summary. Claimant was again admitted in the same hospital on 04.2.2008 and discharged on 15.2.2008. On 5.2.2008, Claimant was underwent removal of condylar plate from the right hip. Ex.P47 is the discharge summary. Again on 11.8.2008, Claimant was admitted in MIOT hospital and discharged on 26.8.2008. During the said period, Claimant underwent total right hip replacement. Ex.P48 is the discharge summary issued by MIOT hospitals, Chennai. 15. In his evidence, Claimant (P.W.1) has stated that he was taken treatment as inpatient for about 92 days in three spells in intensive medical treatment and had undergone surgery for implanting special condylar planting with valgus osteotomy right hip and plant osteo synthesis right femur on 27.11.2007 and special sequetrectomy right femur and valgas osteotomy condylar plating right hip with bridging fibular graft femur on 03.2.2007 and he was bedridden for more than 6 months. P.W.1 further stated that he could not go for work and assisted by persons for carrying out his normal day today life and had physically disabled which depresses his mental peace. P.W.1 further stated that at the time of accident he was working in Petron Engineering Construction Limited, Mumbai and was drawing monthly salary of Rs.9,700/-per month. Because of accident, he could not go for his work. P.W.1 further stated that at the time of accident he was working in Petron Engineering Construction Limited, Mumbai and was drawing monthly salary of Rs.9,700/-per month. Because of accident, he could not go for his work. P.W.1 further stated that because of his permanent disablement, his marriage prospect has been spoiled and he has not married till date. 16. Dr. Muthaiyan, who treated the Claimant and issued disability certificate was examined as P.W.2. In his evidence, P.W.2 has stated that based on the medical records, he had examined the Claimant and assessed the permanent disability at 87%. Ex.P44 is the disability certificate issued by P.W.2 assessing the disability at 87%. The mother of Claimant was examined as P.W.3. In her evidence, P.W.3 has stated that in the accident his son had sustained grievous injuries over the hip and legs and had taken intensive treatment in three spells in MIOT hospitals, Chennai and had also undergone surgery. P.W.3 further stated that because of accident, her son's marriage prospect has been spoiled. 17. Medical Expenses - Tribunal has awarded Rs.12,18,365/-for medical expenses. As pointed out earlier, in the accident Claimant had sustained ipsilateral communited fracture neck and segmental fracture shaft of femur right and had taken treatment for nearly 92 days in various spells in MIOT hospitals, Chennai. In his evidence, P.W.1 has stated that he had incurred medical expenses of Rs.15,00,000/-. Claimant has produced Exs.P6, P12 to P27-medical bills. By perusal of Exs.P6, P12 to P27, it is seen that Claimant has incurred medical expenses of Rs.12,18,365/-. Based upon Exs.P6, P12 to P27, Tribunal has awarded Rs.12,18,365/-for medical expenses. Considering the injuries sustained and the period of treatment undergone by the Claimant and also the medical bills produced, Rs.12,18,365/-awarded by the Tribunal for "medical expenses" is maintained as just and reasonable. 18. Permanent Disability - Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/-for permanent disability. P.W.2-Doctor assessed the disability at 87%. In his evidence, Claimant has stated that because of the disability sustained, he could not do his normal day today avocation. Considering the nature of injuries and that Claimant has sustained 87% disability, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for "permanent disability" is enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/-. 19. Extra-nourishment - Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- for "extra-nutrition and the attendant charges and other incidental expenses". Considering the nature of injuries and that Claimant has sustained 87% disability, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for "permanent disability" is enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/-. 19. Extra-nourishment - Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- for "extra-nutrition and the attendant charges and other incidental expenses". Claimant had undergone treatment for nearly 92 days and considerable amount would have been spent for his nutritious food during the period of treatment. Considering the same, Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for "extra-nutrition and attendant charges and other incidental expenses" is maintained for the head "extra-nourishment" only. 20. Attender Charges - Tribunal has not awarded any amount separately for "attender charges". As pointed out earlier, Claimant has taken treatment as inpatient for nearly 92 days in various spells and during his treatment, somebody would attend the Claimant and the Claimant has incurred expenses for attender. Considering the same, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- for "attender charges". 21. Pain and Suffering - Tribunal has not awarded any amount for "pain and suffering". As stated above, Claimant has taken intensive treatment for various spells i.e. from 16.11.2006 to 01.7.2007; 28.3.2007 to 23.4.2007; 04.2.2008 to 15.2.2008 and 11.8.2008 to 26.8.2008 in MIOT Hospitals, Chennai. Taking into account that the injured Claimant sustained communited fracture injury and was bed ridden for long time, we are of the view, it would be appropriate to award Rs.75,000/- for "pain and suffering". 22. Transport Charges - Tribunal has awarded Rs.57,452/-for "transport charges". Due to the accident, the injured Claimant was not in a position to walk and therefore, he was taken to hospital for treatment on various spells by taxi. To substantiate the same, Appellant-Claimant has produced Exs.P7(series), P28 to P31 and P43(series)-transport receipts for a sum of Rs.57,452/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.57,452/- for "transport charges" and the same is maintained. 23. Loss of Amenities - Tribunal has not awarded any amount for "loss of amenities". Considering the fact that the injured Claimant was aged 24 years at the time of accident and that the Claimant has lost marital prospects at his young age, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for "loss of amenities". 24. 23. Loss of Amenities - Tribunal has not awarded any amount for "loss of amenities". Considering the fact that the injured Claimant was aged 24 years at the time of accident and that the Claimant has lost marital prospects at his young age, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for "loss of amenities". 24. The total compensation of Rs.14,00,817/-awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.17,00,817/- rounded of to Rs.17,00,000/- as under:- Medical expenses Rs.12,18,365.00 Permanent disability Rs.2,00,000.00 Extra-nourishment Rs.25,000.00 Transport Charges Rs.57,452.00 Attendant Charges Rs.25,000.00 Pain and Suffering Rs.75,000.00 Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000.00 Total Rs.17,00,817.00 Rounded off to Rs.17,00,000.00 Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, which in our considered view is in accordance with the consistent view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same is maintained. 25. In the result, 50% negligence and liability fastened upon the Appellant-Claimant by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.138 of 2007 dt. 6.10.2009 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Karaikal is set aside and it is held accident was due to the negligence of Eicher mini lorry bearing registration No.TN-32 C 2476. Compensation of Rs.14,00,817/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.17,00,000/- jointly and severally payable by the Respondents 2 and 3 – owner and insurer of Eicher mini lorry bearing registration No.TN-32 C 2476 payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of Claim Petition till the date of deposit and the appeal is partly allowed. It was stated before us that 3rd Respondent-Insurance Company has deposited entire 50% of the compensation apportioned by the Tribunal. It was also stated that Claimant has not withdrawn any amount. Since the entire liability fastened upon the Eicher mini lorry, 3rd Respondent-Insurance Company, who is the insurer of Eicher mini lorry is directed to deposit the remaining 50% of compensation apportioned by the Tribunal plus the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,99,183/- along with interest from the date of Claim Petition till the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposits, the Claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. There is no order as to costs in this appeal.