JUDGMENT 1. The first respondent herein / claimant had filed M.C.O.P.No.235 of 2001, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District, against the appellant herein / Insurance Company and two others, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-with interest stating that on 09.02.1997, at about 3 p.m., the claimant and one Muthukrishnan had travelled in a JAZZ Moped bearing Registration No.TN-72-Y-3490, when the vehicle was proceeding on the Punniahpuram Main Road from north to south direction and at that point of time, the first respondent's lorry bearing Registration No.TN-45-D-0275, came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction, i.e., south to north direction and dashed against the moped. As a result, the rider of the moped had sustained multiple injuries and hence, the claim petition had been filed. 2. The Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent denied that the driver of the lorry had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the moped. Actually, the rider of the moped had ridden the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry. Therefore, the insurer of the moped are necessary party, but in the claim petition, they have not impleaded as necessary parties. The respondent further denied the age, income and nature of injuries. The driver of the lorry had not possessed valid driving licence at the time of accident, hence, the Insurance Company had pleaded to dismiss the claim petition. 3. On considering the averments on both parties, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had framed two issues, viz., "(i) Who committed the said accident in a rash and negligent manner? (ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation, if so, what is the quantum of compensation?" 4. On the side of the claimant, the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and the doctor has been examined as P.W.2. The claimant had marked thirteen documents, viz., F.I.R., Wound Certificate, Observation Mahazaar, rough sketch, motor vehicle inspector's report, charge sheet, doctor's prescription, X-ray, medical bills, X-ray report, scan reports and disability certificate. On the side of the respondent, no witness, no documentary evidence. 5. The claimant had marked thirteen documents, viz., F.I.R., Wound Certificate, Observation Mahazaar, rough sketch, motor vehicle inspector's report, charge sheet, doctor's prescription, X-ray, medical bills, X-ray report, scan reports and disability certificate. On the side of the respondent, no witness, no documentary evidence. 5. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that on 09.02.1997, at about, 3 p.m., he had ridden the moped along with his friend on the Punniahpuram Main Road and at that point of time, the respondent lorry bearing Registration No.TN-45-D-0275 had been driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. As a result, he had sustained injuries. P.W.1. further stated that immediately he was taken to the Government Hospital, Kadaianallur, wherein he had undergone medical treatment as an inpatient from 09.02.1997 to 07.03.1997. He further stated that his right rib bones, i.e., 3 to 6 were broken and he had sustained fracture injuries on his head as well as fracture in his right hand joint and fracture in his ring finger and injuries to his shoulder. He had further stated that he had spent a sum of Rs.28,940/-towards medical expenses. P.W.2-doctor had examined the claimant and verified the medical records and assessed the disability as 40% sustained by the claimant. 6. After considering the evidence of the claimant and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,52,340/-as compensation to the claimant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 7. Aggrieved by the said award, the above appeal has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that a sum of Rs.1,13,400/-awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of earning', after adopting the multiplier method in the instant case is not appropriate in the instant case since the claimant had sustained simple injuries. The doctor's assessment of disability of 40% is also on the higher side. In the said accident, contributory negligence had to be attributed to the drivers of both the vehicles as the accident involved head on collision between the vehicles. The claimant had not included the owner of the moped and its insurer as necessary party. 9. The doctor's assessment of disability of 40% is also on the higher side. In the said accident, contributory negligence had to be attributed to the drivers of both the vehicles as the accident involved head on collision between the vehicles. The claimant had not included the owner of the moped and its insurer as necessary party. 9. The learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that the accident had been committed by the driver of the lorry in a rash and negligent manner, therefore, the criminal case has been registered against the offending vehicle and its driver. In order to prove the same, F.I.R., charge sheet and rough sketch have been marked. As such, the owner of the moped and its insurer are not necessary parties in the instant case. The Tribunal had not granted compensation under the heads of transport, attender charges and loss of earning during the medical treatment period. 10. On verifying 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. However, the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal after adopting the multiplier method is not appropriate, therefore, this Court modifies the compensation as follows:- Rs.70,000/- under the head of disability, Rs.29,000/-under the head of 'medical expenses', Rs.15,000/- under the head of 'pain and suffering', Rs.5,000/- for transport, Rs.5,000/- under the head of nutrition, Rs.5,000/- for attender charges, Rs.5,000/-under the head of 'loss of earning during the medical treatment and convalescent period' and 'loss of amenities'. In total, this Court awards Rs.1,34,000/-as compensation as compensation to the claimant, as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. The rate of interest i.e., 9% fixed by the Tribunal is unaltered. 11. As per Court records, the appellant has deposited entire amount before the Court and the claimant was already permitted to withdraw 50% of the compensation amount. Now, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the balance compensation amount, as modified above by this Court, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.235 of 2001, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District after filing a Memo along with a copy of this order, subject to deduction of withdrawals, if any, made already. Likewise, the appellant / New India Assurance Company is at liberty to withdraw the excess compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, after filing a Memo. 12. In the result, the above appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.235 of 2001, dated 15.10.2003, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District, is modified. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.