JUDGMENT : V.M. Velumani, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Award dated 16.09.2010, made in MCOP.No.285 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Nagercoil. 2. By the consent of both sides, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. The appellant, Insurance Company is the Second respondent in MCOP.No.285 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal Sub Court, Nagercoil. The first respondent/claimant has filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 11.02.2007. The Tribunal awarded compensation and appellant has come out with the present appeal challenging the said Award. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. In the present appeal, the only question to be decided is, whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is excessive or just and proper. 6. From the materials on record, it seen that the first respondent has stated that he is a fisherman and he proved the same by marking Ex.P11 - Identity Card issued by the Assistant Director, Fisheries Department. The first respondent was taking treatment as inpatient from 11.02.2007 to 04.03.2007. PW.2 - Doctor in his evidence deposed that the first respondent sustained eight injuries and injuries 1 and 4 are simple injuries. He has also deposed that after being discharged from the hospital, he was taking treatment as out patient till 13.03.2010 for 36 months. PW.3 deposed that the first respondent was getting Rs. 200/- to Rs. 300/- per day as salary by working as a fisherman. The appellant and respondents 2 and 3 have not let in any contra evidence. The first respondent marked medical bills as Ex.P10 to prove that he spent a sum of Rs. 2,15,000/- for his medical treatment. PW.2 - Doctor has deposed the nature of injuries sustained by the first respondent and certified that the first respondent has suffered 26% of permanent disability. The first respondent was taking treatment as out patient till 13.03.2010 for 36 months. 7. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the Tribunal has awarded excess amount towards pain and suffering and towards loss of income, are without merits. The first respondent was taking treatment as out patient till 13.03.2010 for 36 months. 7. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the Tribunal has awarded excess amount towards pain and suffering and towards loss of income, are without merits. From the evidence of PW.2-Doctor, it is seen that the first respondent has sustained severe injuries in different parts of the body and the amount awarded for pain and suffering in respect of said injuries, are not excessive. The first respondent has produced medical bills marked as Ex.P10 for having spent the amount for his treatment. The appellant and the respondents 2 and 3 have not disproved the said bills or let in any evidence to prove that the first respondent did not take any treatment as per Ex.P10. 8. As far as the loss of income is concerned, the first respondent is a fisherman used to earn Rs. 200 to Rs. 300/- per day. Considering the nature of work done by the first respondent, it has to be borne in mind that he may not work daily and he will get Rs. 200/- to Rs. 300/- per day. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has fixed the income of the first respondent at Rs. 100/- per day and calculated the loss of income for 37 months and Rs. 100/- per day in the years 2007-2010 is not excessive for fisherman. Considering all the above facts, this Court is of the view that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is based on evidence and is not excessive and there is no reason to interfere with the Award passed by the Tribunal. 9. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount awarded by the Tribunal together with interest, after deducting the amount already deposited if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the first respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the said award amount, on filing proper application before the Tribunal. 10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, by confirming the Award dated 16.09.2010 made in MCOP.No.285 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Nagercoil. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.