Judgment : 1. This Appeal is filed bythe Insurance Company, challenging the liability as well as quantum. 2. Muthammal / claimant, aged 48 years, employed in Biscuit factory, earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month, met with an accident on 22.05.2001. In respect of the accident suffered, she claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal quantified the compensation at Rs.2,75,000/-, under the following break up details:- 3. While quantifying the compensation, in respect of loss of earning capacity, the Tribunal has taken the permanent disability at 35% and taking the monthly income at Rs.2,500/- and adopting the multiplier of 13', the quantification has been done. 3.1. So far as the liability is concerned, the owner as well as the Insurance Company are directed to pay the compensation either jointly or severally. 3.2. These findings on liability as well as the quantum are under challenge by the Insurance Company. 4. The first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Insurance Company has proved, in this case, that the driver did not possess an effective driving licence and therefore, the Insurance Company ought not to have been made liable. 4.1. The Insurance Company has examined an Assistant from the Road Transport Office, where the evidence given is that the driver had a driving licence to drive the Heavy Motor Vehicles, but he has no driving licence to drive two-wheelers. Relying upon this evidence and relying upon the decision reported in 2010 (2) TN MAC 388 : 2012 ACJ 1235 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. V.Vijayakumar),it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the possession of driving licence to drive one type of vehicle will not be sufficient to drive other types of vehicle and therefore, when there is breach of policy condition, the Insurance Company is not liable. 4.2. It is further submitted that, at any rate, the Insurance Company must be given a right to recover the amount from the owner, if in case, this Court comes to a conclusion that there is liability on the part of the Insurance Company. 4.3. The decision reported in 2010 (2) TN MAC 388 (referred to supra) directly applies to the facts of this case and the Insurance Company has proved before the Tribunal that the driver did not have an effective driving licence. 4.3. The decision reported in 2010 (2) TN MAC 388 (referred to supra) directly applies to the facts of this case and the Insurance Company has proved before the Tribunal that the driver did not have an effective driving licence. Even though it is not a case of no licence, the driving licence possessed to drive the four wheeler will not be sufficient for the claimant to drive the two-wheeler. Therefore, the Insurance Company should have an opportunity to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. 5. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant, under Ex.A-7, has produced a typed list, giving details of expenditure at Rs.1,18,502.90, which is not supported by any medical bills. The breakup details provided are, 'Serial number, date of bill, bill number and amount'. 5.1. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that this kind of production of a list, without furnishing the medical bills, will not be sufficient for the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the medical expenditure was around Rs.1,18,000/-. 5.2. This contention is well taken. Admittedly, medical bills are not produced. The typed paper purported to be giving details of medical bills has been filed showing the expenditure at Rs.1,18,502.90 alone has been filed. The Tribunal has thought it fit to grant the same without taking care to find out whether the typed paper is accompanied by the medical bills that has not been done. In the absence of medical bills, only based upon the typed document, medical expenses ought not to have been granted at such an exorbitant rate. However, medical expenses should be granted, having regard to the period of treatment and the nature of injuries sustained. 5.3. In this case, the claimant has suffered fracture in the left leg and apart from that, there had been treatments, by using bandage and Orthotics, for making the bones unite. Having regard to the nature of treatment, the medical expenses can be granted only at Rs.20,000/-. 6. The next contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company / appellant is that the multiplication method of quantification should not have been adopted, having regard to the fact that the disability was only 35%. 6.1. This contention is also well founded and in respect of 35% disability, a sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x35) alone can be awarded. 6. The next contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company / appellant is that the multiplication method of quantification should not have been adopted, having regard to the fact that the disability was only 35%. 6.1. This contention is also well founded and in respect of 35% disability, a sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x35) alone can be awarded. 6.2.Considering the nature of injury, period of treatment and other circumstances, transport expenses is awarded at Rs.7,500/-, pain and sufferings at Rs.20,000/-, extra nourishment at Rs.5,000/- and loss of enjoyment of amenities at Rs.15,000/-. Thus, the total compensation payable would be Rs.1,37,500/-. 7. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, reducing the quantum of compensation from Rs.2,75,000/- to Rs.1,37,500/-, along with interest at 7.5% per annum. Consequently, the connected CMP is closed. No costs. 8. It is represented that, the Insurance Company has already deposited the entire amount of compensation, along with proportionate interest and cost. In view of the reduction in the compensation ordered in this appeal, the claimant would be entitled to withdraw the compensation of Rs.1,37,500/-along with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of receipt, less the amount already withdrawn, if any. The balance amount shall be withdrawn by the Insurance Company. If the compensation amount had not been deposited by the insurance company so far, it shall be deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 8.1. So far as the liability is concerned, the Insurance Company shall pay the amount to the claimant and is at liberty to recover the same from the owner.