Judgment : R. Subbiah, J. 1. Challenging the liability to pay the compensation and also questioning the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Vellore, by award dated 21.7.2010 made in M.C.O.P.Nos.578 and 582 of 2008 along with M.C.O.P.No.71 of 2009, both the appeals have been filed by the insurance company. 2. The first respondent in both the appeals are the claimants and the second respondent is the owner of the vehicle. 3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is, that on 1.6.2008 at about 3.00 p.m., while they were travelling in a car bearing registration No.TN 37 6369 at Arakkonam to Sholingahur Road, the said car was driven by its driver at a hectic speed. While they were nearing Kumpinipettai, in order to avoid collusion with a two wheeler, which was coming in the opposite direction, the driver of the car suddenly turned right side and hit a tree. In the said accident, the driver of the car had died on the spot and the claimants had sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the claimants have filed claim petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.578 and 582 of 2008 respectively before the Tribunal as against the owner of the car and its insurer, claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each. 4. The case of the claimants was resisted by the insurance company by filing counter affidavits stating that the claimants who were travelling in the car were strangers, who were not entitled to travel in the said car as passengers. They were not covered under the policy. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. 5. A joint trial was conducted in both the MCOPs, along with MCOP No.71 of 2009, which was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased. 6. In order to prove the claim, the injured victims / claimants examined themselves as P.Ws.2 and 3 besides examining two other witnesses and marked 21 documents as Exs.P1 to P.21. On the side of the respondents, one Panchaseelan, who was working as Administrative Office of the appellant insurance company, was examined as R.W.1 and three documents were marked as Exs. R.1 to R.3. 7. The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, has come to the conclusion that the accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car viz., the deceased. R.1 to R.3. 7. The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, has come to the conclusion that the accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car viz., the deceased. With regard to the liability, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the car is a private car and the claimants are the occupants of the car. At the time of accident, there was a valid policy. Hence, as far as the occupants of the car are concerned, the insurance company cannot deny their liability. By coming to such a conclusion, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.92,000/- in MCOP No.578 of 2008 (C.M.A.No.1714 of 2011) and a sum of Rs.41,000/-in MCOP No.582 of 2011 (C.M.A.No.1715 of 2011) under different heads. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeals have been filed by the insurance company. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the entire materials available on record. 9. So far as the liability is concerned, we are of the opinion that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation since the injured victims / claimants are only the occupants of the car. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the occupants of the car cannot be accepted. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding rendered by the Tribunal in this regard. 10. So far as the quantum of compensation in respect of the claimant in MCOP No.578 of 2008 (C.M.A.No.1714 of 2011) viz., T.Venkatesan is concerned, we find that on account of the accident, the victim had sustained grievous injuries all over his body. It is the case of the injured victim that he was an agriculturist and a real estate broker and he was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-per month. After the accident, he took treatment in Arakkonam Government Hospital and Vellore Government Hospital as inpatient for about one week. In order to establish the disability suffered by him, one Dr.Shanmugasundaram was examined as P.W.4. P.W.4, in his evidence, has stated that the disability suffered by the victim T.Venkatesan is 35% and the disability certificate was marked as Ex.P.18. After the accident, he took treatment in Arakkonam Government Hospital and Vellore Government Hospital as inpatient for about one week. In order to establish the disability suffered by him, one Dr.Shanmugasundaram was examined as P.W.4. P.W.4, in his evidence, has stated that the disability suffered by the victim T.Venkatesan is 35% and the disability certificate was marked as Ex.P.18. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence of P.W.4 and Ex.P.18, awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/-towards 35% disability, a sum of Rs.16,000/- towards loss of earning, a sum of Rs.4,000/-towards transport charges, a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards extra nourishment, a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards damage to clothes, a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards medical expenses, a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of amenities and a sum of Rs.10,000/- for loss of expectation of life. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.92,000/- as compensation. We are of the opinion that a sum of Rs.92,000/-awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant in C.M.A.No.1714 of 2011 viz., T.Venkatesan as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-cannot be said to be on the higher side. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. 11. So far as the quantum of compensation in respect of the claimant MCOP No.582 of 2008 (C.M.A.No.1715 of 2011) viz., R.Natarajan is concerned, it is found that on account of the accident, the victim had sustained only simple injuries and the Accident Report was marked as Ex.P.17. It is the case of the injured victim R.Natarajan before the Tribunal that he was doing vegetable business and he was also a real estate broker and he was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-per month. The Tribunal after analysing the entire evidence, has awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/-for loss of earning, a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges, a sum of Rs.2,000/-towards extra nourishment, a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards damages to clothes, a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards medical expenses, a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.5,000/-loss of amenities and a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards loss of expectation of life. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.41,000/-as compensation as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-. We are of the opinion that the amount of Rs.41,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation is not an excessive one and there is no compelling circumstances warranting interference of the same. 12. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.41,000/-as compensation as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-. We are of the opinion that the amount of Rs.41,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation is not an excessive one and there is no compelling circumstances warranting interference of the same. 12. In fine, both the civil miscellaneous appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 13. The appellant insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount in both the appeals along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not so far deposited. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their shares.