Judgment These three appeals in three injury cases have been preferred by the National Insurance Company. 2. The accident took place on 21.12.1997 on the Tirunelveli – Kovilpatti main road very near Inammaniyachi. The occupants of the van No.TN-59-A-863, which has been insured with the appellant, have sustained grievous injuries. They are Bala @ Balamani, Suganya Gnana Soundari and Kavitha. They have preferred claim petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.126, 128 and 129 of 2000 respectively, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal Sub Judge), Dindigul. 3. They alleged that the driver of the bus, which has been insured with the appellant, by his rash and negligent driving, caused the road accident. 4. The Tribunal appreciating the evidence, fastened negligence on the bus driver and directed the bus owner and his insurer, to pay them compensation, as detailed below:- S. No. Claimant MCOP. No. Amount awarded (in Rs.) CMA (MD)Nos. 1. Bala @ Balamani 126/2000 1,25,000 CMA. No. 910/2005 2. Suganya Gnana Soundari 128/2000 3,75,000 CMA. No. 911/2005 3. Kavitha 129/2000 1,15,000 CMA. No. 912/2005 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contend that the Bus driver / R.W1 and R.W.2, the Company official have been examined. Ex.R1, the Rough Sketch, goes to show that the van driver is also responsible for the accident. He is equally guilty of negligence. In such circumstances, the Tribunal mainly relying on the criminal Court's judgment wrongly placed the entire negligence on the bus driver. Further, in each case, without properly appreciating the evidence, the Tribunal had granted excessive compensation. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that R.W.1 admitted his guilt in the Magistrate's Court. Now he cannot wriggle out. What was granted by the Tribunal itself less. He further contended that in the very same road accident in M.C.O.P.No.127 of 2009 relating to a fatal case, the negligence was fastened on the bus driver. The Insurance Company honoured the Award, paid the amount and did not challenge before next forum. In such circumstances, they are estopped from arguing otherwise. It cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. 7. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record and the impugned common award of the Tribunal. 8. The main crux of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is based on Ex.R1, Rough Sketch. In such circumstances, they are estopped from arguing otherwise. It cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. 7. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record and the impugned common award of the Tribunal. 8. The main crux of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is based on Ex.R1, Rough Sketch. He would contend that as portraited in Ex.R1, Rough Sketch, the van came from the South to North, while the bus proceeded from the North to South. It would indicate that both the drivers were rash and negligence in driving the vehicles. Thus, in such circumstances, blaming the bus driver alone is not correct. 9. R.W. 1, voluntarily admitted before the Magistrate's Court that he caused the accident by his negligence. Accordingly, he was convicted. He paid the fine. Ex.P13 is the criminal Court Judgment. It has become a matter of record. 10. Now, it is stated that the bus driver/R.W.1, in the Tribunal spoken otherwise. After having made his voluntary admission falling under Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, he cannot take a different stand, unless he gives a specific reason such as coercion and undue influence, extraction. But that is not his version. In such circumstances, Ex.P13, judgment operate as estoppel as against him in taking his present stand. 11. Ex.R1, Rough Sketch. Its author is a police officer. Ex.R1 will give topography of the accident area. It is not conclusive or sole material to decide the manner of accident. Further, the author has been examined and subjected to cross examine. In view of the forgoings, we concur with the finding of the Tribunal as to the negligence issue. 12. M.C.O.P. No. 126 of 2000 relates to Bala @ Balamani, which relates to C.M.A. (MD) No. 910 of 2005. It has been pointed out by the appellant that the Tribunal, after having awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of earning capacity again it has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards partial permanent disability. It amounts to double compensation. 13. It has been replied to by the learned counsel for the claimant that the injured suffered very much. She could not function as before. That is why such compensation has been awarded to her. 14. His disability was assessed at 25%. A reading of the medical evidence would show that she could not run the Taxi Services because of the effect of injury. She could not function as before. That is why such compensation has been awarded to her. 14. His disability was assessed at 25%. A reading of the medical evidence would show that she could not run the Taxi Services because of the effect of injury. But, it does not amounts to functional disability. But, it is loss of amenities of life since she could not use her limbs as before. Therefore, in the circumstances, after awarding Rs.50,000/- for loss of earning capacity, again granting Rs.40000 is not correct. 15. Under certain heads, the compensation awarded is to certain extent is on the lower side. The accident took place in 1997. Considering the then prevailing circumstances, Rs.5000/- towards extra nourishment is raised to Rs.8000/-. Under the head, transportation and attending charges only a lumpsum of Rs.5000/- has been granted. It could be separated. Towards transportation charges Rs.6000/- and towards Attendant charges Rs.7000/-, towards loss of damage to personal property Rs.500/- and for loss of amenities of life Rs.20,000/- have been granted. 16. The compensation is modified as follows:- S. No. Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal in (Rs.) Amount awarded by the High Court 1. Extra nourishment 5000 8000 2. Transportation and Attendant charges 5000 3. Medical expenses 15000 15000 4. Partial permanent disability 40000 5. Loss of earning capacity 50000 50000 6. Transportation 6000 7. Pain and suffering 10000 10000 8. Attendant charges 7000 9. Loss of damage to personal property 500 10. Loss of amenities of life 20000 11. TOTAL 1,25,000 1,08,500 17. M.C.O.P. No. 128 of 2003 relates to Suganya Gnana Soundari, she is concerned with C.M.A.(MD) No. 911 of 2005. Her disability was determined at 48%. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that actually medical bills comes to Rs.50,750/-. Even if its is rounded off, it could be Rs.60,000/-. But, Rs.1,75,000/- is excessive under this head. We agree with this submission. Towards reimbersement of medical expenses we award Rs.60,000/-. Towards future medical expenses, no amount has been granted. Under this head, Rs.40,000/- is granted. Compensation for Extra nourishment expenses has been raised from Rs.10,000/- to 15,000/-. Towards Damage to personal property Rs.500/-is awarded. Transportation and attending charges should be separately awarded. Towards Transportation charges Rs.10,000/- and towards Attendant charges Rs.10,000/-and for loss of amenities of life Rs.20,000/- are awarded. 18. Under this head, Rs.40,000/- is granted. Compensation for Extra nourishment expenses has been raised from Rs.10,000/- to 15,000/-. Towards Damage to personal property Rs.500/-is awarded. Transportation and attending charges should be separately awarded. Towards Transportation charges Rs.10,000/- and towards Attendant charges Rs.10,000/-and for loss of amenities of life Rs.20,000/- are awarded. 18. Now the revised compensation is as follows:- S. No. Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal in (Rs.) Amount awarded by the High Court 1. Extra nourishment 10000 15000 2. Transportation and Attendant Charges 15000 - 3. Medical expenses 1,75,000 60000 4. Partial permanent disability 1,50,000 1,50,000 5. Future medical expenses - 40000 6. Transportation charges - 10000 7. Pain and suffering 25000 25000 8. Attendant charges - 10000 9. Loss of damage to personal property - 500 10. TOTAL 3,75,000 3,00,500 19. MCOP.No.129 of 2000 relates to Kavitha. She is concerned with C.M.A(MD)No.912 of 2005. Under the head medical expenses Rs.25,000/- has been granted. However, the actual bills comes to Rs. 18,400/-. Even rounding it off, it will be only Rs.19,000/-, Rs.6000/-is excess. The Tribunal has not granted damage to loss of property Rs. 500/-. For loss of amenities of life Rs.5000/-. 20. The revised compensation is as follows:- S. No. Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal in (Rs.) Amount awarded by the High Court 1. Extra nourishment 5000 5000 2. Transportation and Attendant charges 5000 5000 3. Medical expenses 25000 19000 4. Partial permanent disability 70000 70000 5. Pain and suffering 10000 10000 6. Loss of damage to personal property - 500 7. TOTAL 1,15,000 1,00,500 21. The appeals are allowed in part. The Award of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.Nos.126, 128 and 129 of 2000 have been modified as Rs. 1,08,500/-, Rs.3,00,500/- and Rs.1.00,500/- respectively together with 9% interest per annum and with costs, from the date of petitions till the date of deposit and with costs. As the entire amount has been already deposited, amount in excess of the said modified amount shall be refunded to the appellant. The modified amounts shall be disbursed to the claimants, less amount, if any, already received. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.