JUDGMENT 1.Amendment as prayed for is allowed. Correction be carried out during the course of the day. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the award dated 18.12.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents' Claims Tribunal-Betul in MACT No. 239/2005. 3. Claimant/respondent No. 1 was riding a Motor Cycle bearing No. MP-48 B 4569, when on 27.3.2005, his motor cycle collided with the offending vehicle belonging to Respondent Nos. 2 & 3. As a result of the collusion between the vehicles, Respondent No. 1 sustained serious injuries in his head. Claiming that he has gone into coma and has sustained 100 % disability and further contending that his monthly income is Rs. 8,000/-, the compensation was claimed. 4. Based on the evidence and material that have come on record, learned tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.8,93,462/- for the injuries sustained and challenging the said award, this appeal by the Insurance Company. 5. It is stated that the learned tribunal has awarded the compensation treating it to be a case of 100% disablement, whereas, the medical evidence shows that the claimant has suffered only a head injury and, therefore, it was not a case of 100% disablement. It is further pointed out that while assessing the annual income of the claimant, no deductions for personal expenses have been allowed and, therefore, the compensation granted is unsustainable. That apart, it is stated that the evidence recorded by the tribunal is perverse. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we have perused the records. From the material available on record, particularly, the statement of the doctor, who had examined the claimant and who had treated him, it is seen that the claimant undertook treatment at Sims Hospital Nagpur and the discharge ticket and other documents available vide exhibit-P477, show that because of the accident, the head of the claimant was crushed and it is found that there were multiple fractures on his head, his scull had crushed, the entire brain matter had come out of the head and it was a case when he sustained serious injuries, went into coma and his entire body had become paralyzed due to the head injury. 7. In view of all these factors, we find no error in the award passed by the tribunal treating the claimant to have been 100% disabled because of the accident. 7. In view of all these factors, we find no error in the award passed by the tribunal treating the claimant to have been 100% disabled because of the accident. That apart, learned tribunal has made assessment of the annual income of the claimant and the compensation is assessed on the basis of material available on record. Taking note of the evidence and material available on record, we see no perversity in the award warranting any further consideration. 8. That apart, we are informed that arising out of the accident and while being in coma, the claimant has since expired. Keeping in view the aforesaid factors, we see no reason to interfere into the matter. Accordingly, finding the award to be passed based on due appreciation of the material available on record, we see no reason to interfere into the matter. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.