Judgment 1. The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the appeal in C.M.A.No.1582 of 2006, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.840 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul. 2. The petitioner has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.840 of 2002. claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondents, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 08.05.2001, when he was travelling in the 1st respondent's van, along with two other persons, namely Murugan and Natarajan, on the Karur to Dindigul road and when the van was near the South of Katthazhapatti Junction, a Bullock Cart carrying a load of sand was going ahead of the van on the same road. At that point of time, the driver of the van, which was carrying a load of onions, drove the van at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the van against the Bullock Cart and caused the accident. Due to the impact, the petitioner sustained injuries and was admitted at the Amaravathi nursing home at Karur, wherein, he received treatment. At the time of accident, the petitioner was doing onion business and earning Rs.2,000/- per month. After the accident, due to the injuries sustained by him, the petitioner is not able to do his work as before. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the said van involved in the accident. 3. The 2nd respondent, in his counter has submitted that the 1st respondent's van driver had been careful and cautious in his driving and that as the Bullock Cart going ahead of the van had come to the centre of the road, the driver of the van had sounded horn and tried to avoid collusion with the bullock cart. It was submitted that as the petitioner had only sustained simple injuries. It was submitted that as the petitioner had travelled as an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle, he had breached the conditions laid down in the policy of insurance. It was submitted that coverage of insurance was only extended towards 3rd party's risk and as the petitioner had travelled in the van, the 2nd respondent cannot be held liable to pay any compensation. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. It was submitted that coverage of insurance was only extended towards 3rd party's risk and as the petitioner had travelled in the van, the 2nd respondent cannot be held liable to pay any compensation. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. In the same accident, two other persons who were injured had also filed claims in M.C.O.P.No.827 of 2002 and M.C.O.P.No.826 of 2002. On the request made by the counsels for their respective parties through a joint memo, joint trial was conducted and common evidence was recorded and common judgment was passed. 5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Was the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent's van bearing registration No.TN-47A-8191 or was it caused by the negligent driving by the driver of the bullock cart?; (2) Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation?; If so, what is the quantum?. 6. On the petitioners side, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.840 of 2002, namely Marimuthu was examined as PW.1; the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.827 of 2002 namely Murugan was examined as PW.2 and the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.826 of 2002, namely Natarajan was examined as PW.2. One Dr. Vijayakumaran, was examined as PW.4 and Dr. N. Velusami was examined as PW.5 and eighteen documents were marked as exhibits P1 to P18 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R dated 08.05.2001; Ex.P2-wound certificate of PW.1; Ex.P3-medical bills (series); Ex.P4-medical report of PW.1 dated 22.05.2001; Ex.P5-E.C.G taken by PW.1; Ex.P6-x rays; Ex.P7-wound certificate of PW.2 dated 31.05.2001; Ex.P8-medical bills (series); Ex.P9-wound certificate of PW.3 dated 31.05.2001; Ex.P10-medical bills pertaining to PW.3; Ex.P11-disability certificate issued to PW.1; Ex.P12-x rays; Exs.P13 and P14-x rays taken of PW.3 dated 25.03.2005; Ex.P15-discharge summary issued of PW.1 at Amaravathi hospital, Karur for PW.1; Ex.P16-x rays taken by PW.5 of PW.1 (8 in numbers); Ex.P17-case sheet issued by Amaravathi hospital, Karur for treatment taken by PW.3; Ex.P18-x ryas taken by PW.3 by PW.5 (3 in numbers). On the respondent's side, one Rajamani was examined as RW.1 and one document namely the copy of insurance policy of van was marked as Ex.R1. 7. Pws.1,2 and 3 have adduced evidence that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 1st respondent's van. The Tribunal further observed that the complaint had been registered as against the van driver as per Ex.P1. 7. Pws.1,2 and 3 have adduced evidence that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 1st respondent's van. The Tribunal further observed that the complaint had been registered as against the van driver as per Ex.P1. Though one witness had been examined on the side of the respondents, he had not denied the occurrence of accident. It is seen that RW.1 had deposed that the petitioner is not entitled to get compensation as he has travelled in a goods vehicle. Hence, the tribunal, on scrutiny of evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 and on scrutiny of Ex.P1, the F.I.R held that the accident had been caused only due to the negligence of the 1st respondent's van driver. 8. PW.5, the doctor had adduced evidence that the radial bone in the petitioners left forearms had been fractured and that it had not joined a proper manner even after treatment. He deposed that the cost of the surgery would be Rs.10,000/-. He deposed that the petitioner had sustained 31% disability and in support of his evidence, he had marked ex.P13-disability certificate and Ex.P18-x rays. The Tribunal on scrutiny of Ex.P9, wound certificate and after considering the oral and documentary evidence, awarded a compensation of Rs.1,127/-towards medical expenses as per medical bills marked as Ex.P10; Rs.31,000/- towards disability of 31%; Rs.10,000/- for future surgery costs; Rs.10,000/- for loss of comfort and loss of amenities; Rs.8,000/- towards pain and suffering. In total, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.60,127 it round off Rs.60,000/-as compensation to the petitioner. 9. It was contended on the side of the respondents that as the petitioner had travelled as a passenger in the said vehicle after paying fare and as the vehicle concerned is a goods vehicle, the conditions laid down in the policy of insurance had been breached and as such the 2nd respondent cannot be held liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, the tribunal observed from the evidence of PW.1, that he had only travelled in the said vehicle as the owner of the onions being transported in the said van. Further, the tribunal observed that no documentary evidence had been produced on the respondents side to prove that the petitioner had travelled in the said van as a passenger. However, the tribunal observed from the evidence of PW.1, that he had only travelled in the said vehicle as the owner of the onions being transported in the said van. Further, the tribunal observed that no documentary evidence had been produced on the respondents side to prove that the petitioner had travelled in the said van as a passenger. Hence, the tribunal held that the 2nd respondent liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and directed the 2nd respondent to deposit the said compensation of Rs.60,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition, till the date of payment of compensation, within one month from the date of its order. 10. Aggrieved by the award passed by the tribunal, the 2nd respondent/United India Insurance Company Limited, Karur, has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the tribunal failed to note that the claimant has not proved his case that he travelled along with his goods i.e., onion and that he is an onion merchant. It was submitted that the tribunal failed to consider that the claimant has not proved or even pleaded the amount, volume and weight of the onion, alleged to have been taken by the claimant in the 2nd respondent's van. It was submitted that the tribunal failed to note that the claimant failed to prove his case by producing Panchanama or Mahazar prepared by the Police investigation Officer, to show and establish that the claimant travelled along with his goods i.e., onion in the respondent's van at the time of accident. These documents would have disclosed if there were any onion in the 2nd respondent's van. 11. It was contended that the tribunal has wrongly interpreted the rulings reported in 2005 ACJ 720 and 2004(i) CTC 210 filed on the side of the appellant. Further, the tribunal, has not properly discussed the rulings in detail before discarding those rulings. It was submitted that the award is excessive. Hence, it was prayed to set aside or modify the order of the tribunal and allow the appeal with costs. 12. The learned counsel for the claimant argued that in the said accident, three persons had sustained injuries. It was submitted that the award is excessive. Hence, it was prayed to set aside or modify the order of the tribunal and allow the appeal with costs. 12. The learned counsel for the claimant argued that in the said accident, three persons had sustained injuries. The claimant has filed M.C.O.P.No.840 of 2002 and the other two O.Ps namely M.C.O.P.No.827 of 2002 and 826 of 2002 have been filed by other petitioners. The Tribunal has passed a common award after considering the wound certificates, disability certificates and other common records. Out of the common award passed in the three O.Ps, the insurance company had challenged only the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.826 of 2002 and M.C.O.P.No.840 of 2002, but the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.827 of 2002 had not been challenged before this Court. As such, the question of liability does not arise. The learned counsel further submits that the claimant had sustained 39% disability but the tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.39,000/-alone instead of Rs.78,000/-. The tribunal had not awarded compensation under the head of loss of earning and attender charges. 13. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on 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 liability and quantum of compensation. Further, this Court is of the view that the appellant had not challenged the liability in the connected M.C.O.P.No.827 of 2002. As such, this Court declines to interfere with the impugned award. As per the record of this Court, it is seen that a conditional order was imposed on the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest and costs. 14. Now, 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.840 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, cum Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order, subject to deduction of withdrawals if any made by the claimant. 15. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.840 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, cum Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul, is confirmed, dated 18.08.2005. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.