JUDGMENT The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company, challenging the Award dated 27.03.2014 passed in MCOP.No.234 of 2009, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/III Additional Sub Court, Trichy. 2. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent/petitioner is the claimant. Claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the damages to the Car in the road accident. 3. The facts of the case are as follows:- (i) It is the case of the first respondent/claimant before the Tribunal that on 06.10.2007, the first respondent's Scoda Octovia Car, bearing Regn.No. TN09 AC 4979 was proceeding from Karur to Trichy main road from West to East, near Manavasi Bus stop. At that time, a Lorry bearing Regn. No. TN-28Y-0956, belonging to the second respondent came from East to West in the same road in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the first respondent's Car. Due to which, the first respondent's Car got damaged. The first respondent/claimant claimed compensation for the damages as against the appellant/Insurance Company. First respondent also claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-spent by him for hiring Car to attend to his work who is a practicing Advocate. (ii) According to the first respondent/claimant, the second respondent has driven the Lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Car and caused damages to the Car. The lorry involved in the accident was insured with the appellant. (iii) The second respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal. (iv) The case of the first respondent/claimant was resisted by the appellant/Insurance Company, by filing counter statement. The appellant contended that due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Car, the accident has occurred and denied that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by Driver of lorry. The appellant denied that the Car was damaged due to the accident. According to the appellant there was no damage to the Car. Similarly, he denied that first respondent incurred a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-for hiring a car to attend his work. The first respondent has not produced any Bill for repairing charges and has not mentioned about the damaged parts. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of MCOP. (v) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and 3 other witnesses as PW.2 to PW.4 and 11 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P11. The first respondent has not produced any Bill for repairing charges and has not mentioned about the damaged parts. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of MCOP. (v) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and 3 other witnesses as PW.2 to PW.4 and 11 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P11. On the side of the respondents, one Ganapathy Sundar, Senior Assistant was examined as RW.1 and no document was marked. (vi) The Tribunal considering the pleadings, evidence both oral and documentary and arguments, came to the conclusion that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving by the Driver of Lorry. The vehicle was insured with the appellant and therefore, the appellant is liable to pay compensation, as per terms of policy. On these findings, Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,68,739/-and directed the appellant to pay the same. 4. Against the said order, dated 27.03.2014, made in MCOP.NO.234 of 2009, the appellant has come out with the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to; (i) take note of the evidence of PW.3, who is an eyewitness and also the driver of the damaged car, who drove the vehicle at the time of accident. (ii) consider the evidence of RW.1 who clearly deposed that the damaged car was insured for the value of Rs.5,00,000/-only; (iii) consider that the spare parts mentioned in the Ex.A4 said to have been replaced are not fully damaged due to the accident and erred in awarding a sum of Rs.7,68,739/-towards spare parts and Labour charges which are highly excessive; (iv) consider that the Car was not assessed by the Surveyor appointed by the appellant and prayed for allowing the appeal. 6. The first respondent filed Cross Appeal No.22 of 2014 claiming a further sum of Rs.2,31,261/-. The learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant/Cross appellant submitted that first respondent has proved that he is entitled to compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-as claimed in claim petition and a sum of Rs.7,68,739/-is very low amount. The learned Judge failed to see that first respondent, who is a practicing Advocate spent a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-for hiring Cars to attend his work till his Car was repaired. Even though first respondent has not produced any documentary evidence, the Tribunal ought to have awarded reasonable amounts under this head. The learned Judge failed to see that first respondent, who is a practicing Advocate spent a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-for hiring Cars to attend his work till his Car was repaired. Even though first respondent has not produced any documentary evidence, the Tribunal ought to have awarded reasonable amounts under this head. In other aspects the learned counsel for first respondent submitted that Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. 7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. The first respondent claimed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-for repairing the damages caused in the accident occurred on 06.10.2007. The first respondent is making a claim against second respondent and appellant as a third party in respect of Insurance taken by first respondent in respect of his car is not a criteria in deciding the claim of first respondent as third party against the appellant and second respondent. The contention of the counsel for appellant that the Car was insured by first respondent with the Insurance Company of first respondent only for Rs.5,00,000/-to Rs. 6,00,000/-and first respondent is entitled to only to this extent is untenable. The appellant did not substantiate this by any acceptable evidence and has not produced any contra evidence to disprove the said claim. First respondent produced oral and documentary evidence to show that a sum of Rs.7,63,239/-, had been actually spent for repairing vehicle. By giving cogent and valid reasons, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,63,239/-. There is no reason to set aside the order of the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards transportation of vehicle to Coimbatore from Trichy is confirmed. 9. As far as counter claim for Rs.2,00,000/- claimed by the respondents for the expenses incurred in hiring Cars, in the absence of his Car for six months, the first respondent has not produced any document for having spent Rs.2,00,000/-towards Transportation. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no infirmity, illegality in the Award passed by the Tribunal, directing the appellant /Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 7,68,739/-with interest at 6% per annum, warranting interference by this Court. 11. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no infirmity, illegality in the Award passed by the Tribunal, directing the appellant /Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 7,68,739/-with interest at 6% per annum, warranting interference by this Court. 11. In the result, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as well as the Cross Objection are dismissed, confirming the award dated 27.03.2014, passed in MCOP.No.234 of 2009, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/III Additional Sub Court, Trichy. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.