Judgment 1. The appellant / third respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree passed in M.A.C.O.P.No.172 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Principal Sub Court, Nagercoil. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.172 of 2005, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents, for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 05.09.2005, at about 09.15 p.m., when the petitioner was travelling along with her relatives in an auto bearing Registration No.TN-74-E-4740 and when it was near Kattuvilai, the second respondent's lorry bearing registration No.KL-01-D-6955, coming in the opposite direction and driven by the first respondent, at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against the auto and caused the accident. In the impact, the petitioner sustained serious injuries and was admitted at Vijaya Hospital, Thuckalay and took treatment there as an inpatient till 15.09.2005. Due to the injuries sustained by her on her right thigh, right knee and right elbow, she is not able to walk and do her work as she used to do before the accident. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim as against the respondents 1 to 6. The first, second and third respondents are the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-01-D-6955 and the fourth, fifth and sixth respondents are the driver, owner and insurer of the auto bearing Registration No.TN-74-E-4740. 3. The third respondent, in his counter has submitted that the driver of the auto, i.e., the fourth respondent did not have a valid licence to drive the auto at the time of accident and that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver and that the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.KL-01-D-6955, drove his vehicle carefully and cautiously. It was submitted that the auto was plied without a valid permit and fitness certificate and that the auto was seized by the R.T.O. and legal actions have been initiated by the R.T.O. The averments in the claim regarding nature of injuries, period of treatment and medical expenses incurred by petitioner was also not admitted. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. The sixth respondent, in his counter has submitted that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent and that the sixth respondent cannot be held liable to pay any amount. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 5. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed three issues for consideration in the case, viz., "(i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry bearing Registration No. KL-01-D-6955? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation as claimed for? and (iii) To what relief?" 6. On the side of the petitioner, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined and eight documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P8, viz., Ex.P1-copy of F.I.R. dated 05.09.2005, Ex.P2-copy of wound certificate, Ex.P3-copy of observation mahazar dated 06.09.2005, Ex.P4-copy of rough sketch, Ex.P5-copy of motor vehicle inspector's report dated 08.09.2005, Ex.P6-disability certificate dated 12.03.2006, Ex.P7-Bills (2) and Ex.P8-salary certificate of petitioner dated 20.08.2007. On the respondent's side, one witness was examined and two documents were marked as Exs.R1 and R2, viz., Ex.R1-copy of driving licence for fourth respondent and Ex.R2-copy of driving licence for first respondent. 7. P.W.1., Laila had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made by her in the complaint regarding manner of accident. She had further adduced evidence that she had sustained severe injuries in the accident and was admitted at Vijaya Hospital for treatment and that based on the complaint given by her, the Thuckalay Police registered a case in Crime No.818 of 2005, under Sections 379, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. against the first respondent. In support of her evidence she had marked the exhibits listed as Exs.P1 to P5. 8. R.W.1, Johnson, the official from Marthandam, R.T.O. Office had adduced evidence that the copy of the driving licence issue register pertaining to the fourth respondent is marked as Ex.R1 and that relating to the first respondent is marked as Ex.R2. R.W.1 had further deposed that the fourth respondent had been issued with driving licence No.F/TN/74 Z 003253/2000 for driving light motor vehicles and auto rickshaw and that the fourth respondent was only allowed to drive private auto and not allowed to drive passenger auto. 9. R.W.1 had further deposed that the fourth respondent had been issued with driving licence No.F/TN/74 Z 003253/2000 for driving light motor vehicles and auto rickshaw and that the fourth respondent was only allowed to drive private auto and not allowed to drive passenger auto. 9. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of P.W.1 and on scrutiny of Exs.P1, P3 and P4 opined that the accident had occurred only due to negligence of the first respondent, i.e., the lorry driver and that no evidence had been let in on the part of the respondents to rebut the evidence regarding manner of accident. The Tribunal on considering that though the said licence issued to the fourth respondent was for driving a private auto, it cannot be held that he had violated the licence conditions, by driving a passenger auto. The Tribunal on observing that the second respondent's auto had been insured with the third respondent at the time of accident held the third respondent liable to pay the assessed compensation to the petitioner. 10. P.W.1., in her evidence had deposed that she was working in a cashew nut factory and earning Rs.1,500/- per month at the time of accident. On scrutiny of her salary certificate marked as Ex.P8, issued by Universal cashew nut factory, it is seen that the monthly wage earned by her for 26 days has been computed at Rs.1,723.80/-. Hence, the Tribunal on opining that it is reasonable for the wage of a female worker in a cashew nut factory to be Rs.1,500/- per month held that the monthly income earned by the petitioner could be taken as Rs.1,500/-per month. From a scrutiny of wound certificate marked as Ex.P2, it is seen that the petitioner had sustained fracture of right femur middle 1/3 and fracture of middle condyle right femur and lacerated injury over right elbow. From scrutiny of Ex.P7, medical bills, it is seen that the petitioner had been admitted at Vijaya Hospital on 05.09.2005 and discharged on 17.09.2005 and that she had received treatment for 11 days and has also undergone a surgical treatment to set right her fractured bones. 11. P.W.3, Dr. From scrutiny of Ex.P7, medical bills, it is seen that the petitioner had been admitted at Vijaya Hospital on 05.09.2005 and discharged on 17.09.2005 and that she had received treatment for 11 days and has also undergone a surgical treatment to set right her fractured bones. 11. P.W.3, Dr. C. Kannan, who provided treatment to the petitioner had adduced evidence that she has undergone treatment as an inpatient for 11 days and continued to take outpatient treatment for another month and that it had taken over two months for the injuries to the had completely and that Ex.P7, medical bills (series) had been issued by their hospital for treatment during two periods of time. P.W.2 had further deposed in his evidence that the petitioner has post traumatic stiffening of right knee joint and right knee union fluctuation is reduced by 70% and as a result, she is not able to squat and sit on the floor and had deposed that the petitioner had sustained partial permanent disability of 35%. However, the Tribunal on considering that the fractured bones had been perfectly united and opined that P.W.2 had not followed the prescribed guidelines for assessing the disability and hence held the % of disability assessed to be on the higher side. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence awarded a compensation of Rs.3,000/-for loss of income during medical treatment and convalescence period. Rs.1,000/- for transport expenses; Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.500/- towards damages of clothes, Rs.68,559/- towards the two medical bills listed as Ex.P7, medical bill (series), Rs.45,000/-under the head of pain and suffering and Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of earning power due to disability sustained by her. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,40,059/-as compensation and directed the third respondent to deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition, i.e., on 07.11.2005, till the date of payment of compensation with proportionate cost, within two months from the date of its order. The claim as against the respondents 4 to 6 were dismissed. 12. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the third respondent / the National Insurance Company Limited, Kanyakumari District has preferred the present appeal. 13. The claim as against the respondents 4 to 6 were dismissed. 12. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the third respondent / the National Insurance Company Limited, Kanyakumari District has preferred the present appeal. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal ought not to have relied on the criminal Court documents to arrive at a conclusion as to who is responsible for the accident since the said documents are not duly proved and that the criminal case was not concluded. It was also contended that the Tribunal failed to note the point of impact, the positions of the vehicles at the place of occurrence of the accident and the damages caused to the vehicles and consequently, the Tribunal has failed to find whether the culpability was wholly on the part of the second respondent. It was contended that the Tribunal failed to see that the driver of the auto rickshaw, the fourth respondent herein had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle and that the said auto rickshaw was overloaded at the time of accident. It was contended that the Tribunal, in any event, ought to have found that the drivers of both the auto and the lorry had contributed negligence towards the cause of accident as it involved a head on collusion of two vehicles coming from opposite directions and ought to have apportioned the negligence between them, at least, equally on both the drivers. Hence, it was prayed to set-aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 14. The learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that the F.I.R. had been registered against the first respondent who is the driver of the second respondent. Further, the claimant had sustained bone fracture injuries. She had spent a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards medical expenses. As per doctor's disability certificate she had sustained 35% disability. As such, the claimant is entitled to receive Rs.70,000/-under the head of disability. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal had not granted adequate compensation under the head of pain and suffering, disability, attender charges, loss of earning during medical treatment period, nutrition and transport. 15. As per doctor's disability certificate she had sustained 35% disability. As such, the claimant is entitled to receive Rs.70,000/-under the head of disability. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal had not granted adequate compensation under the head of pain and suffering, disability, attender charges, loss of earning during medical treatment period, nutrition and transport. 15. 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 conclusions arrived at regarding liability and quantum of compensation. As per Court records, it is seen that this Court imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit 50% of the award amount with accrued interest thereon on 03.11.2009. This Court directs the appellant to deposit the balance compensation with accrued interest thereon as per Tribunal order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16. After such deposit being made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the compensation amount with accrued interest thereon and costs lying in the credit of M.A.C.O.P.No.172 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Principal Sub Court, Nagercoil, after filing a Memo along with a copy of this order, subject to deduction of withdrawals made, if any, already. 17. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award and decree passed in M.A.C.O.P.No.172 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Nagercoil, dated 16.09.2008 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs.