JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the fair and decreetal order dated 29.12.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.397 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(Fast Track Court No.2), Tirunelveli. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: It is a case of injury, which caused in the accident took place on 12.07.2008 at about 13.00 hours. When the injured was riding his bicycle between Elamamaikulam - Arasamaram bus stop, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-69-S-2170 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner and the petitioner fell down and the left side front wheel of the lorry ran over his both legs. Due to the said impact, both the legs below knee were crushed and fractured and immediately he was admitted in the hospital and he took treatment as inpatient and and thereafter as out patient. At the time of accident, the injured claimant was aged about 13 years and he was a student. For the injuries sustained by him, seeking compensation, he filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 397 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(Fast Track Court No.2), Tirunelveli, for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. 3. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, two witnesses viz., P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and eight documents viz., Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked and on the side of the respondents, three witnesses viz., R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined and three documents viz., Exs.R.1 to R.3 were marked. 4. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and arguments of the counsel appearing on either side and also appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred only, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.5,10,700/-, as compensation under the following heads: for transport expenses Rs. 2,000/- for extra nutrition Rs. 2,000/- for pain and sufferings Rs. 25,000/- for permanent disability and loss of income Rs. 3,00,000/- for medical expenses Rs. 1,81,700/- Total Rs. 5,10,700/- 5. Against which, the appellant/Insurance Company has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 6. 2,000/- for extra nutrition Rs. 2,000/- for pain and sufferings Rs. 25,000/- for permanent disability and loss of income Rs. 3,00,000/- for medical expenses Rs. 1,81,700/- Total Rs. 5,10,700/- 5. Against which, the appellant/Insurance Company has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation for loss of income by applying Rs.3,000/- for 1% disability, as there is no proof for functional disability and the Tribunal also was not justified in directing the appellant second respondent to compensate the claimant at the first instance and to recover the same from the owner, since the permit and the fitness certificate for the insured vehicle were not in force at the time of accident. Hence, he seeks interference of this Court to the award passed by the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that based on the available oral and documentary evidences, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion and arrived at correct compensation under various heads. 8. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 9. On a reading of the award granted by the Tribunal, it is seen that the injured claimant has sustained 65% permanent disability and there is no proof to show that there is functional disability. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. G. Ramesh and another reported in 2013 (2) TN MAC 583, this Court is inclined to grant a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) for 1% disability. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- (Rs.3000/-x65%) is awarded for 65% disability sustained by the injured claimant. However, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal for other heads to the injured claimant, in the considered opinion of this Court, are very very meagre, considering the pain and sufferings undergone by the injured claimant, in respect of the grievous injuries sustained by him in his both legs and hands. Hence, this Court is inclined to enhance amount for pain and sufferings to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Likewise, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is also inclined to increase the amount towards transportation to a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, this Court is inclined to enhance amount for pain and sufferings to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Likewise, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is also inclined to increase the amount towards transportation to a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Considering the period of treatment taken by the injured claimant, this Court is inclined to grant a sum of Rs.22,000/- towards attendant charges. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under other heads stand unaltered. Accordingly, the award granted by the Tribunal is modified under the following heads: for transport expenses Rs. 10,000/- for extra nutrition Rs. 2,000/- for pain and sufferings Rs. 1,00,000/- for 65% disability Rs. 1,95,000/- for medical expenses Rs. 1,81,700/- for attendant charges Rs. 22,000/- Total Rs. 5,10,700/- 10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed by modifying the award on the various heads. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interests and costs in within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already deposited and on such deposit being made, the injured claimant is permitted to withdraw the same, with accrued interests and costs without filing any formal petition before the Tribunal. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. The appellant/Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Nanjappan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others, reported in 2003 (1) L.W. 77 .