Judgment :- 1. The appellant/second respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A.(MD) No.481 of 2010, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.214 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.214 of 2008, claiming compensation of Rs.1,91,916/- for the damages sustained by his car in a motor vehicle accident from the respondents. It was submitted that on 22.04.2008, when the driver of the petitioner's Chevrolet Car was driving the said car bearing Registration No.TN-72-M-0897, from Kovilpatti towards Tirunelveli and when the car was being driven from, north to south, in front of the Balanaga Kanniamman temple, Edaicheral, the first respondent's 'tata sumo' car bearing Registration No.TN-69-T-1413, coming in the opposite direction, and driven by its owner cum driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against the petitioner's car and caused the accident. In the impact, the petitioner's car was totally damaged. The value of the petitioner's car was assessed as Rs.5,19,916/-and the petitioner received a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-from his insurance company for the damages caused to his car. A sum of Rs.2,00,000/-was received by the petitioner as sale consideration after he sold his car. Hence, the petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.1,91,916/- towards loss of income and mental agony caused to him for damages of his car and for the balance amount of assessed sale price of his car, from the first and second respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the car bearing Registration No.TN-69-T-1413. 3. The second respondent had submitted in his counter that as the accident had been caused by collusion of the two vehicles, the non-inclusion of the insurance company of the petitioner's car make the claim not maintainable. It was submitted that the driver of the petitioner's car as well as that of the first respondent's car did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident and as such, the policy conditions of insurance had been violated. It was submitted that as the petitioner had already received Rs.3,60,000/- from the insurance company and as his claim for Rs.1,91,916/- had been rejected, he is not entitled to receive the said amount. 4. It was submitted that as the petitioner had already received Rs.3,60,000/- from the insurance company and as his claim for Rs.1,91,916/- had been rejected, he is not entitled to receive the said amount. 4. On the side of the petitioner, three witnesses were examined and ten documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P10, viz., Ex.P1-copy of F.I.R. dated 22.04.2008, Ex.P2-copy of observation mahazar dated 23.04.2008, Ex.P3-copy of rough sketch dated 23.04.2008, Exs.P4 and P5-copy of motor vehicle inspector's report dated 23.04.2008, Ex.P6-copy of charge sheet dated 28.06.2008, Ex.P7-copy of criminal court judgment made in S.T.C.No.910 of 2008, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-I, Kovilpatti, Ex.P8-copy of motor insurance certificate cum policy dated 21.12.2007, Ex.P9-insurance policy and Ex.P10-records of insurance company. On the respondent's side, no witness, no documents. 5. The Motor Accidents claims Tribunal framed three issued for determination in the case, viz., "(i) Was the accident caused due to the negligence of the driver of the first respondent's car? (ii) Is the second respondent liable to pay compensation? and (iii) What is the quantum of compensation which the petitioner is entitled to get?" 6. P.W.2, Raja, the driver of the petitioner's car had adduced evidence that on 22.04.2008, when he was driving the petitioner's car bearing Registration No.TN-72-M-0897, from Kovilpatti towards Tirunelveli and at about 3.15 p.m., when his car was proceeding in front of the Bala Nagakanniamman temple, Edaicheval, the first respondent's tata sumo bearing Registration No.TN-69-T-1413, coming front the opposite direction and driven by its owner cum driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner had ashed against his car, as a result of which, his car had rolled over the side of the road fell into a ditch and had been damaged. 7. P.W.1., had also adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made by P.W.2 regarding the accident and in support of his claim, he had marked Ex.P1-F.I.R., and Ex.P6-charge sheet, Ex.P7-Criminal Court judgment, wherein it is seen that the first respondent had admitted his guilt and paid the fine. 8. The Tribunal observed that though the respondents had cross-examined P.W.2 about manner of accident, no contradictory statements had been given by P.W.2 as regards the manner of accident. 8. The Tribunal observed that though the respondents had cross-examined P.W.2 about manner of accident, no contradictory statements had been given by P.W.2 as regards the manner of accident. The Tribunal further observed that the second respondent had not taken any steps to examine the first respondent and that the first respondent had also not filed any counter to disprove mode of accident. Hence, the Tribunal on considering the evidence of P.W.2 and after scrutiny of Exs.P1, P6 and P7, held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the first respondent. The Tribunal on observing that the first respondent's car had been insured with the second respondent at the time of accident, held the second respondent liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 9. On the petitioner's side, it was argued that at the time of taking insurance policy for the petitioner's car, the value of his car was assessed at Rs.5,19,916/- and premium was paid based on this assessment and that the surveyor, who had assessed the damages caused to his car was paid Rs.2,000/-. It was also stated that the petitioner's car had been used as a tourist car prior to the accident and that the petitioner was receiving a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-through such usage of his car. It was submitted that due to damages caused to his car, the petitioner did not receive any income for a period of four months and that he had sustained a loss of income of Rs.20,000/-. It was submitted that Rs.10,000/-should also be given as compensation to the petitioner for the mental agony sustained by him due to the accident. 10. P.W.3, Vallinayagam, had adduced evidence that the value of the petitioner's car had been assessed at Rs.5,19,000/-at the time of taking the insurance for the said car. He had further deposed that a sum of Rs.3,60,000/-was given to the petitioner towards damages of his car in the accident. On cross-examination, he had stated that the petitioner had agreed to the said settlement of Rs.3,60,000/-after discussion with the officer of the Insurance Company. P.W.1 had also admitted that he had received the said amount of Rs.3,60,000/- after executing a deed to this effect with his insurance company. 11. On cross-examination, he had stated that the petitioner had agreed to the said settlement of Rs.3,60,000/-after discussion with the officer of the Insurance Company. P.W.1 had also admitted that he had received the said amount of Rs.3,60,000/- after executing a deed to this effect with his insurance company. 11. The Tribunal, on considering the oral and documentary evidence, on opining that the petitioner had only got a part amount of Rs.3,60,000/-from his insurance company, for the damages towards his car valued at Rs.5,19,000/-at the time of entering into a policy of insurance, held that the petitioner is entitled to receive the balance amount of Rs.1,59,000/- from the respondents as it had been held that the accident had been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the first respondent. Hence, the Tribunal on considering that the first respondent's car had been insured with the second respondent at the time of accident held the second respondent liable to pay the said compensation to the petitioner. However, the claim of the petitioner towards mental agony was rejected. The claim as regards loss of income for four months and surveyor charges paid were also not considered as no documentary evidence had been produced to prove this contention. 12. Hence, the Tribunal directed the second respondent to pay the said sum of Rs.1,59,000/- 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 two months from the date of its order. The claim as against the first respondent was dismissed. 13. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant / the Oriental Insurance 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 had received Rs.1,60,000/-towards damages to the car from his insurer and that the claimant settled his claim with his insurer and hence, he is not entitled to get double payment of compensation in respect of the same accident. It was pointed out that the Tribunal has failed to note that the insurer of the claimant alone is entitled to claim against the appellant under letter of subrogation from the claimant from the amount paid to the claimant. It was pointed out that the Tribunal has failed to note that the insurer of the claimant alone is entitled to claim against the appellant under letter of subrogation from the claimant from the amount paid to the claimant. It was also contended that the Tribunal has failed to note that no acceptable evidence was produced to prove the repair charges and that neither the mechanic nor any person had been examined to prove the actual repair charges to the car. It was also contended that the Tribunal has failed to consider the depreciation of the value of the vehicles while awarding compensation. Hence, it was prayed to set-aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 15. On the side of the claimant, no one appeared. Hence, this Court is constrained to pass final order. 16. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the claimant had not informed his insurance company about the sale of his car since the car sustained damages in the accident and since he has claimed compensation for damages. However, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is slightly on the higher side. Hence, this Court reduces the compensation from Rs.1,59,000/- to Rs.1,40,000/-taking into account the factor of depreciation of car. As per the Court records, it is seen that this Court imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit the entire award amount with proportionate interest and costs. After such deposit being made, the claimant is permitted to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount with proportionate interest. Now, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the balance compensation as per this Court's decision, with accrued interest thereon lying the credit of M.C.O.P.No.214 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli, after filing a Memo along with a copy of this order, subject to deduction of withdrawals if any made already. Likewise, the appellant is at liberty to withdraw the excess compensation amount of a sum of Rs.19,000/- with accrued interest thereon, after filing a Memo, along with a copy of this order. 17. In the result, the above appeal is partly allowed. Likewise, the appellant is at liberty to withdraw the excess compensation amount of a sum of Rs.19,000/- with accrued interest thereon, after filing a Memo, along with a copy of this order. 17. In the result, the above appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.214 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli, dated 11.08.2009 is modified. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Accordingly ordered.