Judgment 1. The appellant / second respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.23 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Uthamapalayam. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner, Parvathi has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.23 of 2010, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-from the respondents for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicles accident. It was submitted that on 09.03.2008, when the petitioner was proceeding in the first respondent's mini auto bearing Registration No.TN-60-Y-2342 from Solai Thevan Patti towards Cheepalakottai and at about 9.30 a.m., when the mini auto was nearing the "Padinettan Thottam", the driver of the mini auto drove the auto at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the auto had capsized and caused the accident. In the accident, the petitioner sustained injuries on her left and right shoulder and her left hand. Immediately thereafter, she was admitted at the Theni Government Medical College Hospital for first aid and subsequently, she was admitted at Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai, wherein she received treatment. Subsequently, the petitioner has been receiving treatment, as an outpatient at a private hospital. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim as against the first and second respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the auto bearing Registration No.TN-60-Y-2342. 3. The first respondent, in his counter has submitted that he had sold his mini auto bearing Registration No.TN-60-Y-2342 to one Mr. Gajendran, prior to the occurrence of the accident and as per the agreement entered in the sale deed of the said vehicle on 19.12.2006, the first respondent cannot be held liable to pay any compensation and that the said Gajendran had to be added as a necessary party in the claim. 4. The second respondent has submitted that the statements in the claim are contradictory to the statements contained in the F.I.R. It was submitted that the petitioner had traveled in a goods carrying vehicle which is in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act and as such, the second respondent cannot be held liable to pay any compensation. It was submitted that the petitioner had travelled as a gratuitous passenger and that the claim was excessive. 5. It was submitted that the petitioner had travelled as a gratuitous passenger and that the claim was excessive. 5. On the petitioner's side, two witnesses were examined and five documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P5, viz., Ex.P1-copy of F.I.R., Ex.P2-copy of accident register, Ex.P3-copy of motor vehicle inspector's report, Ex.P4-disability certificate, Ex.P5-X-rays. On the respondent's side, two witnesses were examined and two documents were marked as Exs.R1 and R2 viz., Ex.R1-copy of policy and Ex.R2-copy of extract of R.C. Book. 6. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed three issues for consideration in the case, viz.,. "(i) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused? (ii) Who is liable to pay compensation? (iii) What is the quantum of compensation which the petitioner is entitled to get?" 7. P.W.1, the petitioner had adduced evidence that on 09.03.2008, when she was travelling in the first respondent's vehicle, the driver of the vehicle had driven the vehicle at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which it had capsized near "Padinettan Thottam". In support of her evidence, she had marked Ex.P1, F.I.R. 8. Though it was contended on the side of the first respondent that the vehicle had been sold to one Mr. Gajendran and that a sale agreement had also been executed, the Tribunal observed that the first respondent had been the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent's vehicle. 9. R.W.1., Sethu had deposed in his evidence that as per the policy conditions of insurance, two persons were allowed to travel in the first respondent's vehicle and in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P1, the insurance policy. 10. R.W.2, Veeraraghavan had adduced evidence that as per permit conditions, only two persons are allowed to travel in the said vehicle and that as more than two persons had travelled in the first respondent's vehicle at the time of accident, the permit conditions had been violated. In support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.R2, the extract of the R.C. Book. 11. In support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.R2, the extract of the R.C. Book. 11. The Tribunal, on observing that two persons including the driver were permitted to travel in the first respondent's vehicle and as no other persons injured in the said accident had filed any claim excepting the petitioner as per the evidence of R.W.1, held that the second respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Though the first respondent had violated the conditions laid down in the policy of insurance by permitting gratuitous passengers to travel in his vehicle, the Tribunal held that as the coverage of insurance is extended to one person in the vehicle besides the driver, the second respondent should pay the assessed compensation, on behalf of the first respondent, to the petitioner. 12. On scrutiny of Ex.P2, accident register, it is seen that the petitioner had sustained a grievous injury. P.W.2, Dr. Vijayakumaran, had adduced evidence that due to the injuries sustained by the petitioner, a surgical operation was conducted on the petitioner's left hand and that the portion of hand below her writ had been amputated. He deposed that the petitioner had sustained permanent disability of 70% and in support of his evidence, he had marked the disability certificate as Ex.P4. However, the Tribunal on observing that the disability assessed was for a particular portion of the petitioner's body and that it does not reflect the total disability sustained by the petitioner could only be taken as 25%. The Tribunal, on considering that the petitioner was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and on observing that the petitioner was aged 36 years at the time of accident, adopted a multiplier of 15 and awarded a sum of Rs.1,35,000/-as compensation under the head of 'loss of income due to disability' (Rs.3,000 x 12 x 25/100 x 15). The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards nutrition, Rs.2,000/- towards transport expenses, Rs.50,000/- under the head of pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of amenities. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,07,000/-as compensation to the petitioner and directed the second respondent to deposit the said sum 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 one month from the date of its order. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,07,000/-as compensation to the petitioner and directed the second respondent to deposit the said sum 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 one month from the date of its order. The second respondent was permitted to recover the said amount from the first respondent by initiating recovery proceedings after depositing the said compensation. 13. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the second respondent / the New India Assurance Company Limited has preferred the present appeal. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal failed to note that the claimant travelled as a gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle and therefore, the appellant cannot be directed to pay the compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the owner of the vehicle. It was contended that the Tribunal failed to note that only the driver and owner or his authorised representative can travel in the said vehicle and no other person is entitled to travel in the said vehicle. It was contended that the reasoning given by the Tribunal stated that there is insurance coverage for one person apart from driver and no other person has filed the claim petition seeking compensation except the respondent / claimant and therefore, the cited decision is not applicable cannot be sustained. It was contended that the Tribunal failed to note that more than eight persons travelled in the load auto at the time of accident as per the F.I.R. and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. It was pointed out that the present case is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 (1) TN MAC 103 SC and therefore, the pay and recovery direction issued by the Tribunal cannot be sustained under law. Hence, it was prayed to set-aside the decree and judgment passed as against the appellant. 15. The learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that the claimant is an agricultural coolie and she was earning Rs.4,500/-per month and her age was 26 years at the time of accident. The claimant's left hand had been amputated at her wrist. Besides this, she had sustained grievous injuries on both her shoulders. 15. The learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that the claimant is an agricultural coolie and she was earning Rs.4,500/-per month and her age was 26 years at the time of accident. The claimant's left hand had been amputated at her wrist. Besides this, she had sustained grievous injuries on both her shoulders. After the accident, she is unable to do her avocation as a coolie. She had undergone treatment at Government Hospital, Theni, Government Hospital, Maduari and at a private hospital at Chinnamanur for a long period as inpatient as well as outpatient. The doctor had adduced evidence stating that the claimant had sustained 70% disability in the said accident. 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 conclusions arrived at regarding liability and quantum of compensation. As per Court records, it is seen that this Court had imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit 50% of the award amount with accrued interests and costs on 18.01.2012. Now, this court directs the appellant to deposit the balance compensation amount as per Tribunal order with accrued interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After such deposit being made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interests and costs lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.23 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Uthamapalayam, 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.C.O.P.No.23 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Uthamapalayam, dated 10.08.2011 is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.