Judgment : 1. The appellant / third respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2008, made in M.C.O.P.No.837 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Dharapuram. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The claimant had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.837 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Dharapuram, claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation, from the respondents, for the the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. 3. It was submitted that on 07.12.2002, at about 10.00 p.m., when the claimant was standing on Sirumugai Main Road edge, the first respondent had ridden a motorcycle bearing registration No.TN40 8299, in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and lost his control and dashed it against the claimant. As a result, the claimant had sustained bone fracture injuries. Hence, the claimant had filed the claim petition against the respondents, who are the rider, owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN40 8299. 4. The third respondent Insurance Company had filed their counter affidavit and denied the manner of accident. The rider of the motorcycle had ridden it in a careful and cautious manner after observing traffic rules. The rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The first and second respondents had colluded with the claimant and filed a false claim petition. They had further stated that the FIR had been registered after ten days and that the name of the rider of the motorcycle had been mentioned in the complaint. The averments made in the claim regarding nature of injuries, disability and mode of treatment were also not admitted. 5. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: i. Due to whose negligence was the accident caused? and ii. Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation as claimed by him? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 6. On the claimant's side, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and 19 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P19 namely FIR, wound certificate, M.V.I' report, medical records, medical bills, driving licence, R.C.Book, insurance policy, X'ray and disability certificate. On the respondents' side, one witness was examined as R.W.1 and the accident register was marked as Ex.R1. 6. On the claimant's side, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and 19 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P19 namely FIR, wound certificate, M.V.I' report, medical records, medical bills, driving licence, R.C.Book, insurance policy, X'ray and disability certificate. On the respondents' side, one witness was examined as R.W.1 and the accident register was marked as Ex.R1. 7. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that on 07.12.2002, at about 10.00 p.m., when he was standing on Sirumugai Main Road, on the extreme left, the first respondent had ridden the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN40 8299, in a negligent manner and dashed it against him. In the result, he had sustained bone fracture injuries on his left hand and other injuries all over his body. He further adduced evidence that a surgical operation was conducted and a steel plate was fixed in the operated area. After the accident, he is unable to do his avocation as cake remover at a private factory. Further, he had deposed that he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. 8. P.W.2 Doctor had assessed the disability at 20% and he had spoken on the same lines of P.W.1 regarding mode of treatment and disability. 9. R.W.1, who is attached to the United Hospital, Coimbatore, as accountant, had adduced evidence that the claimant had been admitted at his hospital on 08.12.2002 and he had sent intimation to the traffic investigation officer and in support of his evidence he had marked the wound certificate. 10. On recording the evidence of the witnesses and on scrutinizing the documents marked by the parties, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,79,308/-as compensation to the claimant and directed the third respondent Insurance Company to pay the said sum together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, with costs, within a period of one month from the date of it's order. 11. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the third respondent Insurance Company has preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the second respondent's motorcycle had not been involved in the said accident. The claimant, rider and owner of the motorcycle had colluded with each other and filed the FIR after a delay of ten days in order to get wrongful gain. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the second respondent's motorcycle had not been involved in the said accident. The claimant, rider and owner of the motorcycle had colluded with each other and filed the FIR after a delay of ten days in order to get wrongful gain. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of earning capacity, which is not appropriate in the instant case. 13. The very competent counsel for the claimant has vehemently argued that the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries on his left hand and that a surgical operation was conducted at Kovai United Hospital. The Doctor had assessed the disability at 20%. Further, another operation is required to remove the steel plates with screws, which have been fixed in the claimant's left hand. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to receive the compensation. 14. Further, the learned counsel has argued that the claimant had been admitted at Kovai United Hospital and immediately the hospital authorities had informed about the accident to the traffic police investigation wing. In order to prove the same, the hospital authority was examined as R.W.1 and the accident register was marked. Therefore, the contentions raised by the highly competent counsel for the Insurance Company has to be rejected. Considering the nature of injuries, mode of treatment, period of treatment, medical expenses, disability, avocation and future medical expenses, the compensation has been awarded appropriately by the Tribunal. Further, there is no lacuna in the award passed by the Tribunal. 15. 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. However, the mode of compensation assessed by the Tribunal is not appropriate and therefore this Court restructures the compensation assessed by the Tribunal as follows: i. Rs.40,000/- is awarded under the head of disability, ii. Rs.31,308/- is awarded under the head of medical expenses, iii. Rs.15,000/- is awarded under the head of pain and suffering, iv. Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head of transport expenses, v. Rs.15,000/- is awarded under the head of attender charges, vi. Rs.15,000/- is awarded under the head of nutrition, viii. Rs.31,308/- is awarded under the head of medical expenses, iii. Rs.15,000/- is awarded under the head of pain and suffering, iv. Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head of transport expenses, v. Rs.15,000/- is awarded under the head of attender charges, vi. Rs.15,000/- is awarded under the head of nutrition, viii. Rs.30,000/- is awarded under the head of future medical expenses in order to remove steel plate with screws, and ix. Rs.23,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities, loss of comfort since the claimant's left hand bone had been fractured and since he was working as a cake remover at a private firm. As such, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. This Court is of the further view that the hospital authority had informed the police traffic wing about the said accident and that the accident register had also been marked and as such it is seen that the claim is a bonafide one. Further, FIR had been registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. As such, there is no lapse in the said award. Further, the award is found to be fit for execution. 16. This Court has already directed the appellant Insurance Company to deposit 50% of the award amount together with proportionate interest and entire costs, less the amount already deposited, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.837 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Dharapuram. 17. Now, this Court directs the appellant Insurance Company to deposit the balance compensation amount together with proportionate interest to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.837 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Dharapuram, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 18. 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.837 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Dharapuram, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Judgment. 19. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and decree dated 15.04.2008, made in M.C.O.P.No.837 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Dharapuram, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.