Judgment 1. The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the appeal in CMA(MD).No.1653 of 2007, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.1008 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Madurai. 2. The petitioner has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.1008 of 2002, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-from the respondents, for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident. It was submitted that on 03.06.2001, at about 09.35 a.m., when the petitioner was driving the tempo van bearing registration No.TN-59Q-2346, from Coimbatore towards Chennai and when the van was proceeding near Kochikulathur Village, on the Vizhupuram to Chennai main road, the 1st respondents Mahindra Van bearing registration No.TN-59F-3596, coming in the opposite direction and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the front right side of the van driver by the petitioner and caused the accident. In the impact, the petitioner sustained injuries all over his body and was immediately admitted at the Dindivanam Government Hospital and subsequently was referred for further treatment at Government Hospital, Chennai. In the accident, the petitioner sustained fractures of bones in his face, right leg joint, left middle finger. Even after treatment, as the fractured bones and not united, the petitioner is unable to stand or walk. At the time of accident, the petitioner was working as a tempo van driver and earning a sum of Rs.4,000/-per month. Due to the disability sustained by him in the accident, the petitioner is not able to do any work. Hence, the petitioner had filed the claim against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the Mahindra Van bearing registration No.TN-59F-3596. 3. The 2nd respondent, in his counter has submitted that the 1st respondent's van driver drove the van in a careful and cautious manner and that the accident was caused only due to the negligence of the petitioner, who had suddenly driven his van in the wrong side of the road, by overtaking a vehicle going ahead of him and dashed it against the 1st respondent's van. It was submitted that the F.I.R had been filed as against the petitioner and that no case has been filed against the driver of the 1st respondent's van. It was submitted that the F.I.R had been filed as against the petitioner and that no case has been filed against the driver of the 1st respondent's van. The averments in the claim regarding age, income, occupation of the petitioner, nature of injuries sustained, medical expenses incurred, disability and damages sustained were also not admitted. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim. 4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused?; (2) Is the petitioner is entitled to get compensation? If so what is the quantum?; (3) Is the 2nd respondent liable to pay compensation to the petitioner?. 5. On the petitioners side, three witnesses were examined and fifteen documents were marked as exhibits P1 to P15 namely: Ex.P1-copy of F.I.R; Ex.P2-wound certificate; Ex.P3-receipt; Ex.P4-hospital bills (series); Ex.P5-medical bills(series); Ex.P6-bill for Rs.1,290/-; Ex.P7-CT scan report; Ex.P8-scan receipt; Ex.P9-receipt showing payment of compensation; Ex.P10-disability certificate; Ex.P11-x rays; Ex.P12-medical records; Ex.P13-discharge summary; Ex.P14-disability certificate; Ex.P15-X rays. On the respondent's side, one witness was examined and no document was marked. 6. PW.1, the petitioner had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made by him in the claim and in support of his evidence, he had marked the exhibits listed as P1 to P15. He further deposed that in the accident, the front side of both the vehicles had been damaged extensively. 7. On scrutiny of exhibit P1, the F.I.R, it is seen that the driver of the 1st respondent's van namely Nagarajan had filed the complaint as against the petitioner. 8. RW.1, Nagarajan, the driver of the 1st respondent's van had adduced evidence, that when he was driving the van bearing registration No.TN-59F-3596 from Chennai airport towards Madurai and that when he was nearing Kachikulam Village, from north towards south on the National Highway, on the left side of the road, the Tempo van bearing registration No.TN-59Q-2646, coming in the opposite direction and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner had overtaken a bus going ahead of it and come on to the wrong side of the road. He deposed that on seeing this, he had stopped the van on the mud road, on the extreme left of the road and that inspite of this, the van driver by the petitioner had dashed against his van and caused the accident. 9. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P1, observed that the respondent's had not produced any document to show that a criminal case had been filed against the petitioner. It was also observed that the petitioner had also not to produced any documents to show the action taken by him as against the 1st respondent. Further the tribunal observed that neither the petitioner nor the respondent had not got their vehicles inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and obtained his report. It is also seen that a final report had not been produced to show the action taken by police after F.I.R was registered. The Tribunal on considering that no rough sketch had also been produced by either sides, held that the accident had been caused due to the negligence of the petitioner i.e., PW.1 and the driver of the 1st respondent's van i.e., RW.1. 10. PW.1, has further adduced evidence that due to the accident, he had sustained fracture of bones in his face, right fore hand, right joint of foot and left middle finger and also sustained lacerated injuries all over his body. However, the tribunal observed that no medical records had been marked by the petitioner to show that he had received treatment at Dindivanam Government Hospital and Government Hospital, Chennai from 03.06.2001 to 04.06.2001. PW.1 had adduced evidence that his relatives had subsequently admitted him at S.K. Hospital, Madurai and that he had received treatment as an inpatient from 04.06.2001 to 09.06.2001. On scrutiny of ex.P2, wound certificate, Ex.P12-medical treatment records and ex.P13-discharge summary, the tribunal observed that the petitioner had been treated as an inpatient at S.K. Hospital from 04.06.2001 to 09.06.2001 and that a surgery had been conducted on 06.06.2001. It is also seen that the petitioner had sustained fractures of bones in the middle finger of his left hand, right leg joint, shoulder and that surgery had been conducted to set right fractures in his upper chin and that plate had been fixed in the fractured area. On scrutiny of exhibits P3, P4, P5, P6 and P8, it is seen that the petitioner had spent Rs.41,490/- towards medical expenses. 11. PW.2, Dr. On scrutiny of exhibits P3, P4, P5, P6 and P8, it is seen that the petitioner had spent Rs.41,490/- towards medical expenses. 11. PW.2, Dr. Chidambaram, Orthopedist had adduced evidence that after scrutiny of the medical records and after examination of the petitioner he had found that the petitioner had received initial treatment at Government Hospital, Chennai and that on 04.06.2001, he had been admitted at S.K. Hospital, Madurai and received treatment as an inpatient. He deposed that the petitioner had sustained fractures of the 3rd metacarpus bone in his left hand and the tibia spine bone in his right leg joint. He deposed that on taking CT scan on his face, he had found that the petitioner had sustained fracture of the Marxila and bronder bones and also sustained fracture in a few other bones. He deposed that a surgery had been conducted at S.K. Hospital and that he had been discharged on 09.06.2001. He deposed that on 23.11.2006, he had taken x rays of the petitioner to assess his disability and that he had examined the petitioner on 27.11.2006 and observed that the petitioner experiences pain in his right knee when he stands continuously or walks or when he lifts heavy objects and that the bending movements of his right knee had been reduced by 10" and that the movements of his left wrist had also been reduced by 10" and that the petitioner has swelling in his left forearm had shrunk by about ½ c.m., and that the strength of the muscles in his left wrist had been reduced by ½ grade. He deposed that the petitioner had sustained 21% partial permanent disability in the said accident and in support of his evidence, he had marked ex.P10, disability certificate and ex.P11- x rays. 12. PW.3, Dr. Anitha, the Assistant Professor at Rajaji Government Hospital, Dental section had adduced evidence that the petitioner had been admitted at S.K. Hospital, on 04.06.2001, as an inpatient and that he had received treatment till 09.06.2001. She deposed that a surgery had been conducted on the petitioners to set right the fractures sustained by him in the bones of his upper cheek and that plates and screws were fixed in the fractured area. She deposed that a surgery had been conducted on the petitioners to set right the fractures sustained by him in the bones of his upper cheek and that plates and screws were fixed in the fractured area. She deposed that she had examined the petitioner on 06.01.2007 and has found that the fractured bones in his cheek had not joined in a proper manner and due to this the petitioner has difficulty in locking his upper teeth with his lower teeth. She deposed that the petitioners face had been deformed and he was difficulty in biting food. She deposed that the petitioner talks in a slurred manner and that she had assessed the disability at 30%. In support of her evidence, she had marked ex.P14-disability certificate and ex.P15- x rays. 13. The tribunal, on scrutiny of ex.P9, observed that the Oriental Insurance Company i.e., the insurer of the petitioners van had paid a sum of Rs.1,76,000/- as compensation for damages to his tempo van bearing registration No.TN-59Q-2346. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of pain and suffering; Rs.51,000/- towards disability of 51%; Rs.41,490/- towards medical expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards nutrition; Rs.5,000/- towards transport expenses; Rs.10,000/- towards mental shock; Rs.50,000/- under the head of mental agony. In total the tribunal assessed the total compensation as a sum of Rs.2,12,490/-. However, as negligence had been equally apportioned amongst the petitioner and the 1st respondent's van driver, the tribunal held that the petitioner is entitled to get 50% of the compensation assessed from the 2nd respondent. The tribunal directed the 2nd respondent to deposit 50% of the compensation amount of Rs.2,12,490/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, with costs, within two months from the date of its order. 14. Aggrieved by the award passed by the tribunal, the 2nd respondent/New India Assurance Company Limited, has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the tribunal has failed to consider that the 1st respondent is himself negligent and has caused the accident and as a tort feasor, he is not liable to claim any compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the tribunal has failed to consider that the 1st respondent is himself negligent and has caused the accident and as a tort feasor, he is not liable to claim any compensation. It was contended that the tribunal has failed to appreciate and consider the recitals of the F.I.R that it is only the 1st respondent, who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and that in the process of overtaking the vehicle going ahead of it had dashed it against the Mahindra Van bearing registration No.TN-59F-3596. It was contended that the tribunal has failed to consider the evidence of RW.1, in the proper prospective. It was contended that the tribunal, after having awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- for mental shock had again awarded Rs.50,000/-for mental agony which is redundant. It was contended that the award passed is excessive. 15. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries and he had undergone medical treatment at different hospitals. The claimant had spent about Rs.75,000/-towards medical expenses. The Mahendra van driver had not sustained any injuries in the said accident. The claimant had sustained grievous injuries and had been immediately admitted in the hospital. Taking advantage of this, the driver of the Mahendra van had registered a complaint against the claimant. In order to prove contributory negligence, rough sketch ought to have been produced before the tribunal but this had not been done by the insurance company. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to receive the entire compensation from the insurance company. 16. 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 discrepancy in the said award regarding quantum and liability. As per Court records, it is seen that this Court imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit 50% of the award amount on 04.09.2008. Now, this Court directs the appellant to deposit the balance compensation amount with accrued interest thereon within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 17. As per Court records, it is seen that this Court imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit 50% of the award amount on 04.09.2008. Now, this Court directs the appellant to deposit the balance compensation amount with accrued interest thereon within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 17. After such deposit has been made, it is open to the claimants to withdraw the entire compensation amount lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.1008 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order, subject to deduction of withdrawals made, if any. 18. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.1008 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, is confirmed, dated 25.04.2007. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.