Judgment 1. On 25.07.2002, when the claimant was proceeding on the TVS 50 moped bearing Registration No.TN-31-B-2753, on the Panrutti Main road, at about 9.30 p.m., the 1st respondent's mini lorry bearing Registration No.TN-31-A-2334, driven at a high speed and in a negligent manner, in the opposite direction, dashed against the claimant. As a result, he had sustained injuries. Hence, the claim petition has been levelled against the owner and insurer of the vehicle. 2. The United India Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent submits that the 1st respondent's vehicle had not been insured with their Company and the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence. Further, the respondent denied the averments in the claim regarding nature of injuries, mode of treatment, disability and medical expenses. 3. On considering the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely (1) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused? and (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 4. On the side of the claimant, two witnesses were examined and 13 documents were marked namely F.I.R.; Motor Vehicle Inspector's report for both vehicles; Ortho Doctor's Medical summary; and Neurologist's Medical summary; Driving licence; Insurance Policy; X-ray; and Disability Certificate. On the side of the respondents, no witness, no document. 5. PW1 had adduced evidence that on 25.07.2002, at about 9.30 p.m., when he was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-31-B-2753, on the Cuddalore Main Road and at that point of time, the 1st respondent's lorry bearing Registration No.TN-31-A-2334, coming in the opposite direction and driven by its driver in a negligent manner dashed against him. PW1 further stated that he had sustained injuries on his lower jaw and left hand and that he had initially undergone treatment at Government Hospital, Cuddalore. He deposed that his skull bone had been fractured and hence a surgical operation was conducted and he had been hospitalised for a period of one month, as inpatient. PW1 further stated that a blood clot was formed in his brain and therefore another operation was conducted to remove the same. He deposed that two of his bones in his left hand had been fractured and that an operation was conducted and steel plate with screws were fixed. PW1 further stated that a blood clot was formed in his brain and therefore another operation was conducted to remove the same. He deposed that two of his bones in his left hand had been fractured and that an operation was conducted and steel plate with screws were fixed. PW1 further stated that another operation was conducted on his left hand to remove the steel plate. He deposed that after the accident he is unable to move his right hand fully. PW2, Doctor had assessed the disability at 100%. The Doctor further stated that the claimant's brain power has been reduced and his left hand bones were fractured and that he had sustained fracture of his right index finger. 6. On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on scrutinising the documents marked by the claimant, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.4,05,000/- as compensation with interest. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. 7. The highly competent counsel for the appellant has submitted that one Auto driver had lodged a complaint stating that an unknown lorry had caused the said accident and that the vehicle had sped away after the accident. The F.I.R. had been registered with a delay of 5 days. Further, the complainant had not disclosed the vehicle number before the Investigation Officer at the time of levelling the complaint. The claimant had undergone treatment at Government Hospital. However, the Tribunal had granted compensation of a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head of medical expenses which is erroneous. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- under the head of loss of earning capacity. Besides, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for disability which is redundant in the instant case. Again, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- under the head of mental agony and shock, pain and suffering and nutrition, which is also on the higher side, as it had not been properly assessed. The Doctor, who had assessed the disability at 100% is an Ortho Doctor and as such he is not competent enough to assess disability regarding skull injuries. 8. The highly competent counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant is aged about 28 years and he is a vegetable vendor and also has a sound service shop and also involved in agricultural operations and earning Rs.6,500/- per month. 8. The highly competent counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant is aged about 28 years and he is a vegetable vendor and also has a sound service shop and also involved in agricultural operations and earning Rs.6,500/- per month. After the accident, he is unable to do his avocation. As such, he had lost his total earning capacity. Therefore, the Tribunal had granted compensation under the head of disability and loss of earning capacity, since the claimant had sustained compound fracture on his skull, left hand, right hand index finger. 9. Further, he had been hospitalised at two different hospitals and three operations were conducted during the medical treatment period. He has been hospitalised for about two months. His brain had been affected and as such his nervous system had been affected and as a result, the claimant's physical movements had become restricted permanently. Therefore, the Doctor had assessed the disability at 100%. The disability is permanent in nature and there is no possibility for the claimant to reach his normal physical condition. Now, the middle aged claimant is suffering untold hardships and he has to depend on the income of others for his livelihood and also requires physical support of others to carry out his routine work. The trial Court had decided the relevant issues in an appropriate manner. 10. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the highly competent counsel 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 Tribunal had not assessed the compensation in a proper way and therefore this Court reassesses the compensation as follows:- Rs.1,50,000/- is awarded for disability; Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.10,000/- towards attender charges; Rs.15,000/- towards transport expenses; Rs.10,000/- towards nutrition; Rs.1,65,000/- is awarded for loss of amenities, loss of comfort since the claimant's skull bone had been fractured and his brain has been affected and as his left hand bones had been fractured and three surgical operations had been conducted as per Doctor's evidence. As such, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. The rate of interest remains unchanged. 11. As per this Court records, it is seen that the entire compensation amount had been deposited. As such, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. The rate of interest remains unchanged. 11. As per this Court records, it is seen that the entire compensation amount had been deposited. Further, the claimant had been permitted to withdraw 50% of the award amount, with accrued interest. Now, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the balance compensation amount, with interest, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.159 of 2003, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Court) Cuddalore, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. 12. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Decree and Judgment, passed in M.C.O.P.No.159 of 2003, dated 28.09.2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Court) Cuddalore, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.