Judgment :- 1. The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in CMA(MD).No.525 of 2011, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.164 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. II, Thoothukudi. 2. The petitioner has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.164 of 2009, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that the petitioner was working in M/s. Rishi Engineers and Contractor, who are the carrying out Mechanical erection and maintenance jobs for M/s. DCW Limited, Arumuganeri. On 30.11.2009, when the petitioner was returning in the above company's Jeep, after completion of his B shift duty at the company and when the Jeep was proceeding from east to west direction, towards Arumuganeri and when it was near the diversion at Salt Society Salt pan road, situated at the north east of Kayalpattinam bye pass road, the 1st respondent's mini lorry bearing registration No.TN-20AW-7839, coming in the opposite direction and driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Jeep and caused the accident. In the result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and was immediately taken to Autoor Sanar Hospital, in a Tata Sumo Van, after informing their employer. At the time of accident the petitioner was aged 33 years and working as a Plant Operator under an Engineering Contractor in DCW Limited, Arumuganeri and earning Rs.7,500/-per month. Due to the multiple injuries sustained by him in the accident, he is not able to continue his job. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above claim against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of mini lorry bearing registration No.TN-20AW-7839. 3. The 2nd respondent, in his counter has submitted that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep in which the petitioner was travelling and that as the accident was caused by the head on collusion between two vehicles, the owner and insurer of the jeep in which the petitioner was travelling are also necessary party to the proceedings and as such the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. It was also submitted that the petitioner has to prove, through documentary evidence, that the 1st respondent's vehicle had been insured with them at the time of accident. It was submitted that the 1st respondent's Jeep was not covered under a valid permit and fitness certificate at the time of accident and that the driver of the 1st respondent's Jeep did not have a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the petitioner was also not admitted. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. In the same accident, four other persons who had travelled in the Jeep along with the petitioner had also sustained injuries and they have also filed claims in M.C.O.P.Nos.165 of 2009, 166 of 2009, 167 of 2009 and 168 of 2009, claiming compensation for injuries sustained by them in the accident from the respondents. Hence, all the claims were taken up together for enquiry and evidence was recorded in common in M.C.O.P.No.168 of 2009. 5. The petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.168 of 2009 was examined as PW.1, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.164 of 2009 was examined as PW.2, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.165 of 2009 was examined as PW.3, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.166 of 2009 was examined as PW.4 and the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.167 of 2009 was examined as PW.5. One Dr. Ramaguru, was examined as PW.6 and Gnanajesurajan, site Engineer as PW.7. One Dr. Ramaguru, was examined as PW.6 and Gnanajesurajan, site Engineer as PW.7. On the petitioners side, forty three exhibits were marked as Exs.P1 to P43 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-charge sheet; Ex.P3-observation Mahazar; Ex.P4-rough sketch; Ex.P5-wound certificate; Ex.P6-medical bills belong to PW.1; Ex.P7-C.G report belongs to PW.1; Ex.P8-C.T.Scan report belongs to PW.1; Ex.P9-x ray belongs to PW.1; Ex.P10-driving licence belongs to PW.1; Ex.P11-discharge summary belongs to PW.2; Ex.P12-certified copy of motor Vehicle Inspector's Report of the offending; Ex.P13-Sankar Hospital medical bill belongs PW.2; Ex.P14-x ray belongs to PW.2; Ex.P15-series 01.12.2008 to 05.01.2009 AVM hospital medical bills belong to PW.2; Ex.P16-certified copy of wound certificate belongs to PW.3; Exs.P17 and P18-Hematology report belongs to PW.3; EX.P19-ECG report belong to PW.3; Ex.P20-x ray belong to PW.3; Ex.P21-Electrolyte report; Ex.P22-certified copy of wound certificate belongs to PW.4; Ex.P23-series 30.11.2008 to 06.01.2009 medical bills belongs to PW.4; Ex.P24-Hematology report belongs to PW.4; Ex.P25-ECG report belongs to PW.4; Ex.P26-x ray belongs to PW.4; Ex.P27-certified copy of wound certificate belongs to PW.6; Ex.P28-medical bills belongs PW.5; Ex.P29-Hematology report belongs to PW.5; Ex.P30-CT scan report belongs to PW.5; Ex.P31-Sankar Hospital discharge summary belongs to PW.5; Ex.P32-x ray belong to PW.5; Ex.P33-disability certificate belongs to PW.2; Ex.P34-x ray belongs to PW.2; Ex.P35-disability certificate belongs to PW.3; Ex.36-x ray belong to PW.3; Ex.P37-disability certificate belongs to PW.4; EX.P38-x ray belong to PW.4; Ex.P39-salary certificate of PW.1; Ex.P40-salary certificate of PW.2; Ex.P41-salary certificate of PW.3; EX.P42-Salary certificate of PW.4; Ex.P43-salary certificate of PW.5. On the respondent's side, four witnesses were examined and nine documents were marked as exhibits R1 to R9. 6. The Motor Accident's Claims Tribunal framed three issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle?; (2) Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners?; (3) Are the petitioners entitled to get compensation and if so, what is the quantum of compensation they are entitled to get?. 7. PW.1 to PW.5, have adduced evidence that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle and in support of their evidence they have marked the exhibits listed as P1 to P43. 7. PW.1 to PW.5, have adduced evidence that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle and in support of their evidence they have marked the exhibits listed as P1 to P43. On scrutiny of exhibits P1 and P2 i.e., the F.I.R and charge sheet, it is seen that the driver of the 1st respondents mini lorry had been charged with negligent and rash and driving and in causing the accident. The Tribunal on scrutiny of the rough sketch and the motor vehicle Inspector's report and on considering that no contra evidence had been let in on the side of the respondent to show that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep and on considering that the driver of the 1st respondent had also not given any complaint before the Police against the driver of the Jeep and had not raised any objection with the higher Police officials against the criminal case registered against him held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondents mini lorry. 8. RW.1, Muthu Karuppusamy, the Assistant in the Regional Transport Officer, Tirunelveli, had adduced evidence that the permit for the 1st respondent's mini lorry was surrendered on 19.11.2007 and that it was not covered under a fitness certificate at the time of accident and in support of his evidence he had marked as Ex.R1. However, on cross examination, he had admitted that the permit was surrendered and that if had not lapsed. He deposed that the permit, if surrendered, would enable the subsequent owner to get permit from the Regional Transport Office. He also deposed tha the fitness certificate could be obtained from any of the Regional Transport Office. Hence, the tribunal opined that at the time of accident, the 1st respondent's vehicle was covered under a valid permit to ply. 9. RW.4, Chandrasekar, the Motor Vehicle Inspectorr, Regional Transport Office, Tiruchendur, had adduced evidence that the 1st respondent's vehicle driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident and in support of his evidence, he had marked as Ex.R9, the letter from Regional Transport Office, Tiruchendur. 9. RW.4, Chandrasekar, the Motor Vehicle Inspectorr, Regional Transport Office, Tiruchendur, had adduced evidence that the 1st respondent's vehicle driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident and in support of his evidence, he had marked as Ex.R9, the letter from Regional Transport Office, Tiruchendur. However, on cross examination, he had stated that they could not trace out the details since they have not entered the datas in their computer prior to 2006 and that on the basis of ex.P9, it is not possible for him state whether the 1st respondent's driver had a driving licence prior to the year 2006. 10. It is seen that the 2nd respondent had sent a notice to the 1st respondent to produce the documents with regard to his lorry. The notice was unserved. It is seen that the 2nd respondent sent an Advocate notice asking the respondent to produce documents regarding his lorry. But the notices were sent only after the trial and that no notice was sent by the 2nd respondent at an earlier point of time. It was also observed that no notice was sent by the 2nd respondent to the driver of the offending vehicle asking him to produce his driving licence, at an earlier point of time. 11. RW.2, Rajesh, the Law Branch Administrative Officer of the 2nd respondents firm was examined as RW.2 and he had marked the investigation report as Ex.R7. However, the tribunal, on observing that the statement of witnesses had not been recorded in the report and on holding that RW.2 has been appointed by the Insurance Company opined that his report, on behalf of the insurance company was not acceptable. Hence, the tribunal on observing that no documents regarding driving licence of the driver of the 1st respondent pertaining to the period prior to 2006 had been filed by the 2nd respondent and observing that the 2nd respondent had not taken the necessary steps to examine the 1st respondent's driver held that the 2nd respondent was not proved through oral and documentary evidence that the 1st respondent's driver had no valid licence prior to the year of 2006. The tribunal on considering that the insurance policy of the offending vehicle was in force at the time of accident s per exhibits marked as R1 to R7, held both the 1st and 2nd respondents jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 12. PW.2, the petitioner has deposed that due to the accident, he sustained multiple lacerations over upper lip, right palm, right index finger, right foot, right thigh and swelling and tenderness over both thigh, right anterior chest, right arm and right shoulder and right wrist. He deposed that he was working as a plant operator under M/s. Rishi Engineers and Contractors in Arumuganeri DCW Limited and earned Rs.7,500/- per month. He deposed that due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he was not able to continue in his job and that he has incurred loss of income. The discharge summary given by Tuticorin AVM Hospital bill given by Authoor Sankar Hospital, the x ray and medical bills given by AVM Hospital, were marked as Exs.P11 and P13 to P15 respectively. 13. PW.6, the Doctor had deposed in his evidence that after examining the petitioner, he had assessed the partial permanent disability sustained by the petitioner as 45% and in support of his evidence, he had marked as Ex.P33, the disability certificate and Ex.P34 -x rays. 14. The Tribunal on considering the oral and documentary evidence awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/- as compensation to the petitioner under the head of disability of 45%; Rs.25,000/- was awarded under the head of pain and suffering. PW.5, the Site Engineer had adduced evidence that the petitioner was working as a Plant Operator in their contract work and that he gets a monthly salary of Rs.7,500/-and in support of his evidence, he had marked ex.P40, the salary certificate. Hence, the tribunal, on considering that the petitioner would not have been able to do any work for three months due to injuries sustained by him in the accident, awarded a sum of Rs.22,500/-(Rs.7,500/-x3)as compensation under the head of loss of income for three months; Rs.1,000/- was awarded for transport expenses and Rs.3,000/-for extra nourishment. The tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.2,36,300/-as compensation to the petitioner under the head of medical expenses, as per exhibits marked as Exs.P13 and P15. The tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.2,36,300/-as compensation to the petitioner under the head of medical expenses, as per exhibits marked as Exs.P13 and P15. In total, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,77,800/-as compensation to the petitioner and directed the 1st and 2nd respondents to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.3,77,800/-as compensation to the petitioner with proportionate costs, 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, within 30 days from the date of its order. 15. Aggrieved by the award passed by the tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Pune, has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the tribunal erred in not considering that there is violation of policy and permit conditions and that the appellant insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. It was contended that the tribunal ought to have directed the owner of the vehicle (2nd respondent herein) to pay the entire awarded compensation to the claimant. It was contended that the tribunal erred in not considering that the owner of the vehicle (2nd respondent herein) had operated the mini lorry, without the lorry being had operated the mini lorry, without the lorry being covered under a valid permit and fitness certificate and as such he had violated the conditions of the policy and permit and as such, the appellant insurance company cannot be held liable to pay any compensation. It was contended that the tribunal has erred in not considering that the driver of the appellant insured vehicle namely the mini lorry bearing registration No.TN-20AW-7839, did not possess a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident, which is in violation of the policy and permit condition and as such the appellant insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay any compensation. It was contended that the tribunal erred in not considering the evidence of RW.1 to RW.4 and Exs.R1 to R9 in the proper perspective. It was contended that the award granted by the tribunal was excessive and hence it was prayed to either set aside or modify the order passed by the learned tribunal. 16. It was contended that the tribunal erred in not considering the evidence of RW.1 to RW.4 and Exs.R1 to R9 in the proper perspective. It was contended that the award granted by the tribunal was excessive and hence it was prayed to either set aside or modify the order passed by the learned tribunal. 16. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant is working as a Plant Operator under M/s. Rithi Engineers and Contractors and earning Rs.7,500/- per month. After the said accident, he is unable to continue his job for a period of six months. But, the tribunal had granted compensation only for a period of three months under the said head. It was also pointed out that the tribunal had not granted compensation under the head of attender charges. 17. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side, and on scrutiny of the impugned award of the tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding liability. However, the quantum of compensation is awarded is slightly on the higher side. Therefore, this Court restructures, the compensation as follows: As per the evidence of PW.1, i.e., claimant and Doctor's evidence the claimant has sustained multiple grievous injuries but there is no specific medical opinion about the claimant's mode of treatment and no information had been provided as to whether, or not he had sustained fractures of bones and also no information regarding surgical operation had been mentioned. As such, the medical expenses of a sum of Rs.2,36,300/- which had been granted by the tribunal is on the higher side. Hence, this Court scales down the award of medical expenses from 2.36,300/- to Rs.1,50,000/-. This Court awards a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/-is awarded towards attender charges; Rs.15,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of income; Rs.10,000/-is awarded under the head of nutrition; Rs.10,000/-is awarded towards transport expenses and Rs.90,000/- is awarded towards disability of 45%. In total, this Court awards Rs.3,05,000/- 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 the date of payment of compensation. In total, this Court awards Rs.3,05,000/- 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 the date of payment of compensation. As per this Court records, it is seen that this court had directed the appellant to deposit the entire amount with accrued interest thereon and costs. 18. Now, it is open to the claimant to withdraw a sum of Rs.3,05,000/- with accrued interest, as total compensation, as per this Court's findings, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.164 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. II, Thoothukudi, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order, subject to deduction of withdrawals if any, made by the claimant. Likewise, the appellant is at liberty to withdraw the excess compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, after filing a memo before the trial Court. 19. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.164 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. II, Thoothukudi, dated 07.09.2010, is modified. No costs.