Judgment : 1. The claimant stated that on 24.07.2004, at about 7.00 a.m., when he was driving the van bearing Registration No.TN-33-S-9436, towards Chennai on the G.S.T. Road and when the van was nearing Ulundurpet, the 3rd respondent's vehicle, coming in the opposite direction and driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the van. As a result, the claimant had sustained injuries. Hence, the claim petition had been levelled against the respondents. 2. The 2nd and 4th respondents i.e. the same Insurance Company had filed counter statement and denied the manner of the accident. The respondent stated that the driver of the 3rd respondent had driven the lorry in a cautious manner but the claimant had driven the van in a negligent manner and caused the said accident. Further, the claimant did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The respondents further denied the age, income and nature of injuries sustained by petitioner. 3. On recording the averments of the parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration namely (1) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused? and (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? On the side of the claimant, two witnesses were examined and 13 documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witness, no documentary evidence. 4. The claimant had marked the following documents namely F.I.R.; Motor Vehicle Inspector's reports; Medical treatment records; Driving licence; Scan; X-ray and Disability Certificate. PW1 had adduced evidence that he had driven the van bearing Registration No.TN-33-N-9436 at about 7.00 a.m. on the G.S.T. Road and that when the van was nearing Ulundurpet, the 3rd respondent's lorry bearing Chassis No.MWE-533919, driven by its driver in a negligent manner, came on to the middle of the road and dashed against the van. PW1 further stated that he had undergone treatment at various hospitals namely Government Hospital, Ulundurpet and Sheela Clinic, Coimbatore. PW1 further stated that he had sustained fracture of bone in his left leg, right hand, right shoulder and also right leg. He stated that he had undergone treatment for about 10 days, as an inpatient. 5. PW1 further stated that he had undergone treatment at various hospitals namely Government Hospital, Ulundurpet and Sheela Clinic, Coimbatore. PW1 further stated that he had sustained fracture of bone in his left leg, right hand, right shoulder and also right leg. He stated that he had undergone treatment for about 10 days, as an inpatient. 5. PW2, Doctor had adduced evidence that the claimant had sustained 20% disability and that the claimant had undergone a surgical operation on his right thigh and that a steel plate was fixed in the operated area. 6. On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by the claimant, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,81,365/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Against the said award and decree, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. The very competent counsel vehemently argued that the claimant had committed the said accident in a negligent manner and as such the contributory negligence has to be attributed in the instant case. As per F.I.R., the claimant had sustained simple injuries. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/-under the head of medical expenses, which is not relevant in the instant case. 7. The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the F.I.R. has been registered against the driver of the 3rd respondent's vehicle and that the said vehicle had been insured with the 4th respondent and as such the issues regarding negligence and liability had been fastened on the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The claimant had spent a sum of Rs.1,37,365/-towards medical expenses but the Tribunal had not granted adequate compensation to the claimant. 8. On considering the impugned award and on hearing the arguments advanced on both sides, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. This Court is of the further view that the F.I.R. has been registered against the driver of the lorry and the claimant had spent a sum of Rs.47,365/-towards medical expenses. Further, the claimant had undergone a surgical operation on his right thigh and a steel plate with screws were fixed in the operated area and since he is working as a driver of a heavy vehicle, the quantum of compensation is not on the higher side. As such, the award is found to be fit for execution. Further, the claimant had undergone a surgical operation on his right thigh and a steel plate with screws were fixed in the operated area and since he is working as a driver of a heavy vehicle, the quantum of compensation is not on the higher side. As such, the award is found to be fit for execution. This Court directed the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount. Now, this Court permits the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.446 of 2005, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. 9. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.446 of 2005, dated 04.08.2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.