JUDGMENT 1. At the outset, Mr.R.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that quantum of compensation of Rs.3,03,000/- awarded to the respondent/claimant with interest @9% per annum, is the only challenge in this appeal. Submission of the learned counsel is placed on record. 2. According to the Insurance Company, the finding of the Claims Tribunal that the 1st respondent would not attend his work for 8 months, is incorrect. It is also the contention that the Claims Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation, by fixing the monthly income as Rs.6,000/-, without any tangible evidence. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 4. As per the claim petition, the injured himself was a Medical Practitioner and the accident has occurred, when he was aged 32 years. According to him, he sustained grievous injuries in the eye and suffered disfiguration. Due to injuries, eye remains unclosed in all times. There would be tears running all the time. Despite the treatment, the same could not be rectified. 5. The aspect as to how the Claims Tribunal has adverted to the medical evidence adduced and awarded compensation under various heads, including loss of earning during the period treatment and other heads, is extracted as hereunder: “TAMIL” The translated version reads thus: “While examining the evidence given by P.W.1, it is seen that he has sustained injuries on his face and eye, in a road accident, that he went to a government hospital, after having been injured, that on the next day, he went to an eye hospital in Egmore, underwent treatment there, as an inpatient, was later discharged and underwent treatment privately, in Ranjith hospital. There, he underwent treatment, as an inpatient for 12 days, thereafter, he underwent treatment in Sankara Netralaya hospital; that since he had sustained injury on his eye, he could not close the eye properly, that there was discharge of water from the eyes, that he was practising as a Ayurveda and Siddha doctor and was earning Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. It is mentioned in Ex.P.5 that the claimant underwent treatment as an inpatient in Egmore Eye hospital from 15.11.1998 to 16.11.1998. From Ex.P.6 it is evident that he underwent treatment in the eye hospital, Egmore, and that he underwent treatment as inpatient in Ranjith hospital, from 16.11.98 to 1.12.1998. It is mentioned in Ex.P.5 that the claimant underwent treatment as an inpatient in Egmore Eye hospital from 15.11.1998 to 16.11.1998. From Ex.P.6 it is evident that he underwent treatment in the eye hospital, Egmore, and that he underwent treatment as inpatient in Ranjith hospital, from 16.11.98 to 1.12.1998. It is also mentioned that he had sustained injury in his left eye and underwent treatment, therefor, and that, besides sustaining injury in his eye, he had also sustained multiple injuries on his face. From the medical records, it is evident that the period during which the claimant was undergoing treatment, in a private hospital in this manner, he has incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs.30,444/-, as evident in Ex.P.8. When P.W.2 examined the claimant, in order to determine the disability caused to him, he has found that the claimant sustained an incised injury in the lower eyelid of the left eye, near nose, that a tube carrying tears was severed and that the lower eyelid was permanently suspending and owing to this, there would be continuous discharge of tear that, at night, while sleeping, eyelids of both eyes would not close properly, that there was an ugly scar in the lower eyelid and that his disability would be 35% to 40% and issued Ex.P.9-disability certificate. While considering the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and medical records, it is observed that the claimant would have sustained disability as mentioned by P.W.2 – ophthalmologist, and decided that the claimant should be awarded Rs.40,000/-for this disability. While perusing Ex.P.9, it is evident that the claimant would have continuous discharge of water from his eye, that the eye would not close properly and that he has sustained permanent facial disfiguration in his face. at the time of occurrence, he was 32 years old. He has stated that he has a hospital, at Vengal. While adducing evidence, though he had stated that he was earning Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month, in the petition, it has been mentioned that his income was Rs.6000/-. Due to the injuries sustained by him, there was no possibility to have engaged in work and make earnings for atleast 8 months. Hence, a sum of Rs.48,000/- is being awarded for the loss of income for the said period. Due to the injuries sustained by him, there was no possibility to have engaged in work and make earnings for atleast 8 months. Hence, a sum of Rs.48,000/- is being awarded for the loss of income for the said period. Further, taking into consideration the possibilities of the claimant incurring heavy expenses, by hiring a private vehicle, for commuting to the hospital, after having sustained injuries in the accident, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is being awarded for transportation and that a sum of Rs.5000/- is being awarded for the expenses, incurred during the period of treatment for taking nutritious food. A sum of Rs.55,000/- is being awarded towards medical expenses, as per Ex.P.8 series. Taking into consideration, the possibilities of severe pain and agony underwent by the claimant, during the period of treatment, owing to the injuries sustained by him, in his face, body and eye, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is being awarded to the claimant for the pain and agony suffered by him. Owing to the injuries, sustained by the claimant, in the situation, in which there is continuous discharge of water from the eye and that he could not close his eye lids, and in the situation in which he suffers from headache and pain in the eye, his medical profession, would be affected and hence a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is being awarded to the claimant for the loss of earning capacity. Therefore, it is decided that the claimant shall be awarded a total sum of Rs.3,03,000/- as compensation, in this petition.” 6. Going through the above, this Court is of the view that there is no manifest illegality in computing the pecuniary and non pecuniary losses. Quantum of compensation cannot be said to be grossly excessive to the Medical Practitioner, who sustained grievous injuries in the eye. Hence, the challenge made by the appellant - Insurance Company fails. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Consequent to the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant – Insurance Company, is directed to deposit the award amount, with proportionate accrued interest and costs, less the statutory deposit, to the credit of MCOP No.380 0f 2000 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Thiruvallur. within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not deposited earlier. within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not deposited earlier. On such deposit, the respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount with accrued interest and costs, by making necessary applications.