Judgment : 1. Being aggrieved over the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub-Court, Dindigul, passed in M.C.O.P.No.41 of 2006, the Insurance Company has filed the appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are : On 12.12.2005, the claimant was travelling along with goods in TATA TRUCK TN.57 J 3722 from Dindigul to Vedandur and at that time, the driver had applied sudden brake, which resulted in the vehicle capsized. In the impact, the claimant had sustained fracture and grievous injuries. Immediately he was admitted at City Hospital in Dindigul. Alleging that the driver of the lorry is responsible for the accident, he laid a petition claiming compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. 3. Resisting the claim Petition, the respondent filed counter disputing the age, income, occupation of the claimant and their liability. 4. To substantiate his case, the claimant examined two witnesses and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On the side of the appellant R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 were marked. The tribunal relying upon the evidence of the claimants has held that the driver of the lorry was responsible for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs.58,500/- along with interest at 7.5% p.a. Challenging the award, the present appeal is filed. 5. Heard Mr. C. Ramachandran, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K. Savadamuthu, learned counsel for the second respondent and perused the records. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claimant had sustained only 20% partial permanent disability, but the tribunal has awarded excessive compensation of Rs.58,500/-.The main contention of the appellant is that the award of the Tribunal is excessive. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants made submissions in support of the award passed by the Tribunal. 8. The appellant has not challenged their liability and they have filed this appeal only questioning the compensation award by the Tribunal. 9. P.W.2 Dr. Vijayakumaran has given evidence stating that he examined the claimant and after perusing Ex.P6-X-ray and other medical records issued Ex.P5-Disability Certificate stating that he sustained 32% disability. However, the Tribunal has fixed only 20% disability and awarded Rs.40,000/- towards permanent disability. Considering the fact that the claimant had sustained fracture and he was taking treatment as inpatient for five days, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.3500/- towards medical expenses. However, the Tribunal has fixed only 20% disability and awarded Rs.40,000/- towards permanent disability. Considering the fact that the claimant had sustained fracture and he was taking treatment as inpatient for five days, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.3500/- towards medical expenses. Altogether, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.58,500/-. 10. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 would establish that the claimant had sustained fracture and he took treatment. The tribunal relying upon the evidence referred above, has awarded compensation, which in my considered opinion is just and reasonable and the same is conformed. 11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of this appeal, the appellant shall deposit the entire award amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.