Judgment : 1. The appellant / second respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2005, made in M.C.O.P.No.349 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The claimant, had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.349 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-from the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. 3. It was submitted that on 27.11.2002, at about 06.00 p.m., when the claimant was driving the first respondent's lorry bearing registration No.TN10 E1567, loaded with lemons, along with one Ahmedjan as a Cleaner, from Bijapur to Hasan and when the lorry was near Unnaapavi, a boy had suddenly crossed the road. On seeing this, the claimant had applied brakes in order to avoid hitting the boy and in the process, the lorry capsized. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was admitted at Nedugunthi Primary Health Centre, wherein first aid was given. Subsequently, he was admitted at Bijapur Government Hospital and received treatment as an inpatient for seven days. Thereafter, he took treatment at Victoria Hospital, Bangalore, for four months, wherein a surgery was conducted on his left hand. Prior to the accident, the claimant was working as a driver under the first respondent and earning Rs.5,000/-per month. Due to the injuries sustained by him in his left hand, he is not able to work as a driver. Hence, the claimant had filed the claim petition against the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.TN10 E1567. 4. The second respondent Insurance Company, in their counter affidavit, had submitted that FIR had been filed against the claimant and as such the claimant cannot claim compensation. The averments made in the claim petition that the boy had suddenly crossed the road was also not admitted. The averments made in the claim petition regarding age, income, occupation of the claimant, nature of injuries sustained, period of treatment and medical expenses were also not admitted. Further, it was submitted that the claimant did not have a valid licence to drive the lorry at the time of accident. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. The averments made in the claim petition regarding age, income, occupation of the claimant, nature of injuries sustained, period of treatment and medical expenses were also not admitted. Further, it was submitted that the claimant did not have a valid licence to drive the lorry at the time of accident. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 5. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration namely: i. Due to whose negligence was the accident caused? and ii. Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation, which the claimant is entitled to get? 6. On the claimant's side, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and nine documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9 namely FIR, copy of wound certificate, medical bills, copy of policy, driving licence, photo, negatives, X'rays and disability certificate. On the respondents' side, no witness was let in and no document was marked. 7. P.W.1 had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made by him in the claim petition regarding manner of accident and in support of his evidence, he had marked Exs.P1 to P9. On scrutiny of Ex.P1, it is seen that the complaint had been lodged against the claimant by the cleaner of the lorry, Ahmedjan, who had stated that at the place of occurrence of accident, the claimant had driven the lorry at a high speed and that on seeing a boy suddenly crossing the road, he had applied sudden brake due to which the lorry capsized. The Tribunal, on considering that the claimant had been careful in his driving and that he had put on the brakes only in order to avoid dashing against the boy and had tried to stop the lorry, held that the accident was caused by the sudden crossing of the road by the boy. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Exs.P4 and P5, observed that the first respondent's lorry had been insured with the second respondent and that the claimant had a valid driving licence to drive the lorry at the time of accident. Hence, the Tribunal held that the second respondent, being the insurer of the first respondent's lorry, liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 8. Hence, the Tribunal held that the second respondent, being the insurer of the first respondent's lorry, liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 8. On scrutiny of Ex.P2, it is seen that the claimant had sustained five injuries and that two injuries are grievous in nature. P.W.2 Dr.Ashok Kumar had adduced evidence that he had examined the claimant and found that the claimant had sustained fracture of bone in his left upper arm and also sustained fracture of bone in his left wrist and that the flesh in his left fore arm had been sheared off. He deposed further that the claimant had taken treatment at Victoria Hospital, Bangalore and that a surgical skin grafting operation had been carried out and the skin on his stomach had been removed and fixed on his left forearm. Further, he deposed that steel rods had been fixed in the fractured area and that the flexibility of his left arm wrist joint and joints of other fingers had been restricted. He has also deposed that the claimant would not be able to carry out his normal routine work as the flexion in his left shoulder joint had been reduced due to fracture sustained in his left fore arm. Further, he deposed that due to the deep cut injuries sustained by the claimant in his right cheek, his face had been disfigured. He had also deposed that the claimant would not be able to drive vehicles and that another surgery had to be carried out to remove the steel plates fixed in his hand. He certified that the claimant had sustained 60% disability and in support of his evidence, he had marked Exs.P8 and P9 X'rays and disability certificate respectively. 9. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for grievous injuries sustained and Rs.6,000/-for three simple injuries sustained by the claimant, Rs.23,500/-was awarded for medical expenses, as per medical bills marked as Ex.P3, Rs.3,50,000/-was awarded under the head of disability, Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded for pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- was awarded for nutrition. 9. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for grievous injuries sustained and Rs.6,000/-for three simple injuries sustained by the claimant, Rs.23,500/-was awarded for medical expenses, as per medical bills marked as Ex.P3, Rs.3,50,000/-was awarded under the head of disability, Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded for pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- was awarded for nutrition. In total, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.6,29,500/- as compensation to the claimant and directed the second respondent to pay the award amount, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, with costs, within a period of two months from the date of it's order. 10. Aggrieved by the said Award, the second respondent Insurance Company has preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company has contended in the appeal that the Tribunal erred in holding the appellant liable to pay compensation inspite of the fact that the first respondent was the tort feasor and he sustained injuries due to his own negligence. Further, it is contended that the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition as not maintainable by placing reliance on Ex.P1 FIR. It is also contended that the Tribunal failed to note that the appellant is liable to indemnify the second respondent herein for the claim arising out of the tortuous act committed by the first respondent/rider to the third parties only. It is also contended that the assessment of disability at 60% by P.W.2 and award of Rs.3,50,000/- for loss of earning power had been given without any basis. It is also contended that the award of Rs.1,06,000/- towards injuries is contrary to the provisions of the M.V.Act. It is also contended that the award of Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/-for extra nourishment are excessive. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 12. The very competent counsel appearing for the claimant has submitted that the claimant's left hand had been fractured and the flesh were sheared off and that a skin grafting was conducted on the left hand and the skin had been taken from his stomach. The Doctor had assessed the disability at 60%. The claimant's face had been disfigured due to deep cut injuries. The Doctor had assessed the disability at 60%. The claimant's face had been disfigured due to deep cut injuries. Therefore, he is unable to work as a driver of heavy vehicles and hence the compensation had been awarded. Further, the claimant underwent treatment as an inpatient for a period of four months. As such, the Tribunal had awarded the compensation under the relevant heads. 13. On considering the factual position 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 and liability. However, the quantum of compensation is on the higher side, since the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-under the head of pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- under the head of nutrition. Further, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of two grievous injuries, which are not relevant in the instant case. Further, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- under the head of disability, which is also not relevant in the instant case. Therefore, this Court reassesses the compensation as follows: i. Rs.1,20,000/- is awarded towards disability, ii. Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering, iii. Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards transport expenses, iv. Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards attender charges, v. Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards nutrition, vi. Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards loss of earning during medical treatment and convalescence period, vii. Rs.23,500/- is awarded towards medical expenses, and viii. Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities, loss of comfort due to two surgical operations conducted in his hand and due to skin grafting performed. In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs.4,18,500/-as compensation to the claimant, as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. This Court is of the view that the negligence and liability had been decided in an appropriate manner. The rate of interest remains unaltered. 14. This Court has already directed the appellant Insurance Company to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with accrued interest thereon, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.349 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri. 15. The rate of interest remains unaltered. 14. This Court has already directed the appellant Insurance Company to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with accrued interest thereon, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.349 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri. 15. Now, this Court directs the appellant Insurance Company to deposit the balance compensation amount, as per this Court's findings, with proportionate interest thereon, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.349 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 16. After such a deposit having been made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the modified compensation amount, as per this Court's findings, with proportionate interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.349 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Judgment. 17. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed and the Judgment and decree dated 31.01.2005, made in M.C.O.P.No.349 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, is modified. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.