Judgment 1. The appellant / third respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree passed in M.A.C.O.P.No.173 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, Vincent has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.173 of 2005, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-from the respondents, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 05.09.2005, at about 9.15 p.m., while the petitioner and some of his relatives were returning home in an auto, and when the auto was near the Kattuvillai turning, the second respondent's lorry bearing Registration No.KL-01-D-6955, coming in the opposite direction and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the auto and caused the accident. In the impact, the petitioner was seriously injured and taken to Vijaya Hospital, Thuckalay and took treatment as an inpatient till 17.09.2005 and later on took treatment as an outpatient. Due to the injuries sustained in his forehead, chest and face he has severe headache, chest pain and body pain. After the accident he is not able to go for a job and maintain the livelihood of his family. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the respondents 1 to 6. The first, second and third respondents are the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry and the fourth, fifth and sixth respondents are the driver, owner and insurer of the auto. 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, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and six documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6, viz., Ex.P1-copy of F.I.R., dated 05.09.2005, Ex.P2-copy of observation mahazar dated 06.09.2005, Ex.P3-copy of rough sketch dated 06.09.2005, Ex.P4-copy of motor vehicle's report, Ex.P5-copy of wound certificate dated 05.09.2005 and Ex.P6-medical bills dated 17.09.2005. On the respondent's side, one witness was examined and one document, viz., the copy of the driving licence was marked as Ex.R1. 7. P.W.1, Vincent has adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made by him in the claim and in support of his evidence he had marked exhibits listed as P1 to P6. He had further deposed that as the result of the accident, he had sustained grievous injuries and was admitted at Vijaya Hospital, Thuckalay for treatment. He deposed that based on the complaint preferred by a co-passenger of the auto, viz., Laila, the Thuckalaly Police registered a case in Crime No.818 of 2007. P.W.1 adduced evidence that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent's lorry by the first respondent. 8. The Tribunal on scrutiny of evidence of P.W.1, and on scrutiny of exhibits marked as Exs.P1, P2, P3 and P4 held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the first respondent. 9. R.W.1., R. Lawrence of the Regional Transport Office had adduced evidence that the fourth respondent has been issued light motor vehicle three wheeler driving licence No.F/TN/74Z/003253/2000, dated 14.07.2000 and that as per this licence, he is not entitled to drive an auto rickshaw. So, the Tribunal observed that at the time of accident, the fourth respondent did not possess a valid licence. So, the Tribunal observed that at the time of accident, the fourth respondent did not possess a valid licence. However, the Tribunal on observing that the accident was caused only due to the negligence of the first respondent and that the fourth respondent had driven the auto on the left side, by observing all traffic rules, held that there is no question of fixing any liability on its owner or insurer. Hence, the Tribunal, on considering that the accident had been caused by the negligence of the first respondent, held the third respondent liable to pay the assessed compensation to the petitioner. 10. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that he was working as a labourer in a quarry mine and drawing an income of Rs.6,250/-per month. However, the Tribunal on considering that no documentary evidence had been marked to prove this contention held that the notional income of the injured could only be taken as Rs.3,000/-per month. P.W.1 had deposed that he underwent treatment as an inpatient at Vijaya Hospital for 13 days, i.e., from 05.09.2005 to 17.09.2005. However, the Tribunal observed that no particulars regarding date of discharge have been entered in Ex.P5 and that the discharge summary has not been marked as an exhibit. On scrutiny of Ex.P5, it is seen that all the injuries sustained by the petitioner are simple in nature. However, it is seen that the petitioner has undergone the entire treatment at a private nursing home at Vijaya Hospital, Thuckalay, on scrutiny of Ex.P6, receipt issued by the said hospital to show that he had spent a sum of Rs.4,975/-towards medical treatment. Hence, the Tribunal on careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence awarded a compensation of Rs.1,500/- towards loss of income for two weeks, Rs.5,00/-towards transport to hospital, Rs.500/- for extra nourishment, Rs.500/-towards damages to clothing and articles, Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses as per Ex.P5 and Rs.15,000/-towards pain and suffering. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.23,000/- as compensation to the petitioner 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 petition till the date of deposit, with proportionate cost, within two months from the date of its order. 11. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the third respondent / the National Insurance Company Limited, Nagercoil has preferred the present appeal. 12. 11. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the third respondent / the National Insurance Company Limited, Nagercoil has preferred the present appeal. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal 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 the criminal case was not concluded. It was pointed out 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 herein. It was contended that the Tribunal failed to see that the driver of the auto, i.e., the fourth respondent herein had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle and that the said auto was overloaded at the time of accident. It was also contended that as the said accident was caused due to ahead on collusion between two vehicles coming from opposite directions, the Tribunal should have apportioned the negligence between the drivers, at least, equally, on both the drivers. Hence, it was prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 13. The learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that the claimant had sustained grievous injuries on his right side chest, forehead and chin, and he was hospitalized as an inpatient. The Tribunal had not assessed adequate compensation to the claimant since the liability has been proved against the appellant herein. 14. 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 17.03.2009. 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. 15. 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. 15. 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.173 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. 16. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award and decree passed in M.A.C.O.P.No.173 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Nagercoil, dated 15.02.2008 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs.