Judgment :- 1. The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in CMA(MD).No.639 of 2011, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.61 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court cum Fast Track Court No.2, Pattukkottai. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner, has filed the above claim in M.C.O.P.No.61 of 2007, claiming a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the respondents, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 16.06.2005, at about 08.30 p.m., when the petitioner was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-49N-9465 on the Madhukkur to Athirampattinam road, on the left side of the road from north to south, the 1st respondents "Caliber" motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-49K-7665, coming in the opposite direction and driven by its rider at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came on the right side of the road and dashed against the petitioner's motor cycle. In the impact, the petitioner sustained fractures of bone in his right heel and sustained injuries in his right shoulder and chest and also sustained lacerated injuries all over his body. He was immediately admitted at the Sindhuja Hospital, Pattukottai, as an inpatient and received treatment here from 16.06.2005 to 22.06.2005. Subsequently, he took treatment at Vinothagan Hospital, Thanjavur from 05.07.2005 to 09.07.2005 as an inpatient and thereafter, took treatment at Malar hospital, Chennai from 10.07.2005 to 27.07.2005, as an inpatient. Subsequent to this, he has been taking treatment at other private hospitals. As the petitioners right leg had been amputated due to the fractures sustained in the accident, the petitioner is not able to walk and is not able to use his right hand for doing any work. Due to frequent pain experienced by the petitioner, in his chest, the petitioner has difficulty in breathing. The petitioner has spent over Rs.10,00,000/- towards medical expenses. At the time of accident, the petitioner was working as the Head Master of the Primary School and earning Rs.14,975/-per month. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the 1st and 2nd respondent's, who are the owner and insurer of the motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-49K-7665. 3. The petitioner has spent over Rs.10,00,000/- towards medical expenses. At the time of accident, the petitioner was working as the Head Master of the Primary School and earning Rs.14,975/-per month. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the 1st and 2nd respondent's, who are the owner and insurer of the motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-49K-7665. 3. The 1st respondent in his counter has submitted that the 1st respondents vehicle driver had a valid driving licence at the time of accident and that he had followed all the traffic rules and regulations while driving the motorcycle and that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the petitioner, who had seen the 1st respondent's vehicle coming in the opposite direction. It was submitted that as the 1st respondent's vehicle had been insured with the 2nd respondent. Only the 2nd respondent can be held liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the petitioner was also not admitted. 4. The 2nd respondent, in his counter has submitted that the petitioner has to prove through documentary evidence that the 1st respondents vehicle was covered under a valid R.C and F.C at the time of accident. It was submitted that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the petitioner and that he also did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The averments in the claim regarding nature of injuries and disability sustained are also not admitted. It was submitted that the petitioner had sustained only simple injuries in the accident and that the claim was excessive. 5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the 1st respondent's vehicle?; (2) Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation from the respondents? 6. On the side of the petitioners side, two witnesses were examined and eleven documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P.11 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report; Ex.P3-Copy of R.C of vehicle; Ex.P4-copy of driving licence; Ex.P5-copy of policy; Ex.P6-wound certificate; Ex.P7-discharge summary issued by Malar Hospital; Ex.P8-medical receipts (series); Ex.P9-copy of salary certificate; Ex.P10-disability certificate; Ex.P11-x rays. 6. On the side of the petitioners side, two witnesses were examined and eleven documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P.11 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report; Ex.P3-Copy of R.C of vehicle; Ex.P4-copy of driving licence; Ex.P5-copy of policy; Ex.P6-wound certificate; Ex.P7-discharge summary issued by Malar Hospital; Ex.P8-medical receipts (series); Ex.P9-copy of salary certificate; Ex.P10-disability certificate; Ex.P11-x rays. On the respondent's side, one witnesses was examined as RW.1 and one document namely the Investigation Report was marked as exhibit R1. 7. PW.1, the petitioner had adduced evidence which is corroborative with the statements made in the claim and in support of his evidence he had marked the documents listed as P1 to P11. He further deposed that due to bacterial infection in his right leg, gangrene had spread upto his right knee and so his right leg, below the knee was amputated, while he was taking treatment at Malar Hospital. He further evidence than an artificial leg had been fixed on 27.07.2005 and that he had spent over Rs.10,00,000/- towards medical expenses. He deposed that he is not able to stand for long duration while taking classes in school and that he is not able to stand and walk for long durations of time and he is not able to drive any two wheeler vehicles. He also deposed that he is not able to do any agricultural work. He deposed that he had sustained loss of income and that he had claimed a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. 8. On scrutiny of Ex.P1-F.I.R, it is seen that the accident had occurred on 16.06.2005 at 08.30 p.m., and that the case has been registered only on 26.07.2005, based on the complaint given by the petitioner wherein he had stated that the 1st respondent's vehicle rider had been guilty of negligence and caused the accident. On scrutiny of Ex.P2, the motor vehicle Inspector's report, it is seen that the 1st respondent's vehicle had been inspected after a period of one month from the date of the said accident. However, the tribunal on considering that the petitioner had taken treatment as an inpatient at Malar Hospital and that his right leg, below knee had been amputated opined that the delay in filing the F.I.R had been only caused due to the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the subsequent treatment taken by him. 9. However, the tribunal on considering that the petitioner had taken treatment as an inpatient at Malar Hospital and that his right leg, below knee had been amputated opined that the delay in filing the F.I.R had been only caused due to the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the subsequent treatment taken by him. 9. RW.1, the Sriram had adduced evidence that the 1st respondent's vehicle had not been involved in the accident as the petitioner had filed the F.I.R after a delay of one month and that a false case had been foisted against the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle, in order to get undue gain. 10. On scrutiny of Exs.P2, P4 and P5, it is seen that the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle had a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle and that the vehicle was covered under a valid F.C for the period from 06.11.2003 to 05.11.2018 and that the coverage of insurance for the vehicle was valid till 02.10.2005. It was also observed on scrutiny of Motor Vehicle Inspector's report that the accident was not caused due to any mechanical defects in the vehicle. Hence, the tribunal, on considering the oral and documentary evidence held that the 2nd respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 11. On scrutiny of Ex.P7, the medical report issued at Malar Hospital Chennai, it is seen that the petitioner was aged 56 years at the time of accident. It is also seen that the petitioner was not a sugar patient and that the bacterial infection on his right leg had sit in only due to the crush injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident and that subsequently his right leg, below the knee, had been amputated. On scrutiny of medical receipts marked as Ex.P8, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the petitioner under the head of medical expenses. 12. PW.2, Dr.Chellappan, had adduced evidence that he had examined the petitioner on 21.03.2007 and also examined the medical records. On scrutiny of medical receipts marked as Ex.P8, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the petitioner under the head of medical expenses. 12. PW.2, Dr.Chellappan, had adduced evidence that he had examined the petitioner on 21.03.2007 and also examined the medical records. He deposed that due to the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident, he had taken treatment at "Private Hospital" at Pattukottai and Thanjavur and subsequently was admitted at Malar Hospital, Chennai, on 10.07.2005, as an inpatient and that on 12.07.2005, a surgery was conducted on his right leg but due to bacterial infection of his leg, the right leg of the petitioner, below his knee had been amputated on 18.07.2005. He deposed that presently the petitioner would be able to walk only if an artificial leg was fixed. He deposed that the petitioner has sustained 70% permanent disability and in support of his evidence, he had marked as ex.P10-disability certificate and Ex.P11- x rays. 13. The Tribunal, on considering that the petitioner was still employed as a teacher opined that the petitioner had not sustained any loss of income. However, the tribunal, on considering that the petitioner had sustained permanent disability, awarded a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of pain and suffering and mental agony; Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards transport expenses; Rs.2,00,000/- was awarded towards loss of future prospects. In total, the tribunal, awarded a sum of Rs.3,10,000/-as compensation to the petitioner and directed the 2nd respondent to deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit, within three months from the date of its order. 14. Aggrieved by the award passed by the tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, Coimbatore, has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the tribunal, ought to have held that there are discrepancies in the documents filed by the claimant and as such should have held that the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-49K-7665 was not actually involved in the accident and should have observed that the vehicle had been falsely implicated by the claimant, in collusion with the owner of the vehicle. It was pointed out that the tribunal has failed to appreciate that there was no proof of admission of the claimant in Sindhuja Hospital and Vinodagan hospital and ought to have found that the claimant was admitted at Malar Hospital only on 10.07.200 and that there is no mention about the involvement of the insured vehicle in any of the hospital records. It was pointed out that the tribunal ought to have found that the accident register extract of Vinodagan memorial hospital at Tanjore speaks of a road traffic accident alone (RTA) and the identification of the insured vehicle was not established in the said record. It was pointed out that the owner of the two wheeler, who is said to have caused the accident, did not suffer any injury and there was no proof that his vehicle was damaged as a result of the accident and hence the tribunal ought to have found that the insured vehicle was not actually involved in the said accident. It was also contended that the findings of the tribunal as to the reason for the delay of 40 days in registering the F.I.R was not tenable. It was contended that the tribunal chose to ignore the submissions of PW.1, in his cross examination as to the proof of involvement of the insured vehicle in the impugned accident. It was contended that the tribunal ought to have appreciated the admission of PW.1, in cross examination that his driving licence had expired even before the date of occurrence of accident. Hence, it was prayed to set aside the award and decree passed by the tribunal. 15. Not being satisfied by the award passed by the tribunal, the petitioner has preferred a cross objection in cross objection No.41 of 2009, in the said appeal. The learned counsel for the cross objector has contended that the tribunal, after having observed on scrutiny of ex.P8 (series) that the medical expenses incurred was Rs.1,48,878/-ought not to have restricted it to Rs.30,000/-without any reasons. It was contended that the tribunal, after having found that the petitioner sustained injuries on 16.06.2005 and was under medical treatment till 16.09.2005, failed to award compensation under the head of loss of income during the period of medical treatment. It was also pointed out that the tribunal erred in not awarding any amount towards the expense incurred for his assistant during the medical treatment period. It was also pointed out that the tribunal erred in not awarding any amount towards the expense incurred for his assistant during the medical treatment period. It was also contended that the Tribunal ought to have granted Rs.25,000/-as prayed for towards charges to Thanjavur and later on to Chennai by engaging ambulance to travel about 350 kms. It was also contended that the tribunal ought to have awarded compensation under the head of nutrition and loss of future income. Hence, the learned counsel has prayed for additional compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 16. The learned counsel further argued that the accident took place on 16.06.2005 and immediately he was rushed to the Sindhuja Hospital, Pattukottai, wherein he had undergone treatment upto 22.06.2005, as an inpatient. Subsequently, he had been admitted at Vinodhagan Hospital, Thanjavur, wherein he had also been treated as inpatient for a few days. Thereafter, for better treatment, he had been admitted at Malar Hospital, Chennai and took treatment from 10.07.2005 to 27.07.2005. During this period, a surgical operation was conducted and his right leg, below the knee had been amputated. Hence, the delay had been caused for lodging the complaint against the rider of offending vehicle. 17. On considering 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 discrepancies in the conclusions arrived at regarding liability. However, the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, is on the lower side. Considering the nature of injuries, mode of treatment and medical expenses. This Court is of the further view, that the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries and his associates had given more attention on the injured person. As such, the injured person had been admitted at Sindhuja Hospital and subsequently, at Vinodhagan hospital and later on at Malar hospital, Chennai. The injured has been treated as inpatient from 16.06.2005 to 27.07.2005. Therefore, the delay caused in filing the F.I.R is condonable. However, the compensation has not been granted adequately: Rs.1,44,000/- is awarded towards disability; Rs.25,000/- is awarded pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards transport; Rs.10,000/- is awarded for attender charges; Rs.10,000/- towards nutrition; Rs.1,00,000/-for fixation of artificial leg; Rs.1,45,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses and Rs.1,00,000/-towards loss of amenities and permanent discomfort. However, the compensation has not been granted adequately: Rs.1,44,000/- is awarded towards disability; Rs.25,000/- is awarded pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards transport; Rs.10,000/- is awarded for attender charges; Rs.10,000/- towards nutrition; Rs.1,00,000/-for fixation of artificial leg; Rs.1,45,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses and Rs.1,00,000/-towards loss of amenities and permanent discomfort. In total, this Court awards Rs.5,44,000/-as compensation to the petitioner as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till date of payment of compensation. 18. This Court directs the appellant/Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited, to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, as per this Court's findings, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, after deducting earlier deposits made by the insurance company. After such deposit has 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.61 of 2007, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.II, Pattukottai, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. 19. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in CMA.No.639 of 2011 is dismissed. The Cross Objection No.41 of 2009 is allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.61 of 2007, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. II, Pattukottai, dated 30.04.2007, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.