JUDGMENT 1. The instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance company challenging the Award dated 09.09.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No. 2), Cuddalore in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 94 of 2005. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are as follows: (i) The first respondent sustained injuries on 26.04.2003 as a result of an accident caused by a motor cycle bearing Registration No. TN-31-A-5947 owned by the second respondent and insured with the Appellant. (ii) The first respondent preferred a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 94 of 2005 seeking a compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only). (iii) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by its Award dated, 09.09.2005 in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 94 of 2005, directed the Appellant to pay the first respondent a sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty two thousand only) together with interest at the rate of 7.5%, per annum from the date of the claim till the date of realisation. 3. Aggrieved by the Award dated 09.09.2005 passed in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 94 of 2005, the instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. 4. Heard, Mr. S. Vadivel, the learned Counsel for the Appellant. Despite service of notice on the first respondent and her name having been printed in the cause list today, there is no appearance on her side. Notice is yet to be served on the second respondent. Since the appeal relates to the year 2008, and this Court is going to confirm the Award, there is no necessity to serve the notice on the second respondent. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, there was a delay in registering the First Information Report against the driver of the insured vehicle and the accident has not been proved by the first respondent before the Tribunal. According to him, despite the delay in registering the First Information Report and the accident having not been proved, the Tribunal has erroneously passed an Award in favour of the first respondent against the Appellant. 6. This Court has examined the impugned Award. The accident happened on 26.04.2003 which resulted in injuries caused to the first respondent. The First Information Report was registered on 18.05.2003 after a gap of 22 days from the date of the accident. 6. This Court has examined the impugned Award. The accident happened on 26.04.2003 which resulted in injuries caused to the first respondent. The First Information Report was registered on 18.05.2003 after a gap of 22 days from the date of the accident. The First Information Report was registered only against the driver of the insured vehicle. 7. Even though the Appellant has disputed the accident before the Tribunal, the Appellant has not produced any contra evidence to disprove the claim of the first respondent that only due to the accident caused by the insured vehicle, he had sustained injuries. 8. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent has filed ten documents which are marked as Exs.P1 to P10 and he has also examined two witnesses including herself as well as her Doctor. But, on the side of the Appellant, no documents were filed nor any witness examined. 9. The Tribunal under the impugned Award has considered all the documents filed by the first respondent and only thereafter passed the impugned Award against the Appellant. In this appeal, while making the submissions, the learned Counsel for the Appellant has not raised any serious objection to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned Award. 10. The first respondent has sustained grievous injuries and has suffered 40% permanent disability as per the disability certificate Ex.P-9 produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has assessed the same at 35%. 11. As seen from the discharge summary produced before the Tribunal, the first respondent was hospitalized between 26.04.2003 and 07.05.2003 as a result of the injuries sustained by her on account of the accident. Even though in the claim petition, the first respondent had claimed that she was earning a monthly income of Rs. 4,000/- as a tailor at the time of the accident, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income only at Rs. 1,000/-. 12. Considering the nature of injuries which are grievous in nature, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier method, while assessing the compensation payable to the first respondent. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,52,000/- to the first respondent under the following heads:- Heads Amount Disability (Rs. 1,000 x 12 x 11) Rs. 1,32,000 Pain and Suffering Rs. 5,000 Other Heads Rs. 15,000 Total Rs. 1,52,000 13. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,52,000/- to the first respondent under the following heads:- Heads Amount Disability (Rs. 1,000 x 12 x 11) Rs. 1,32,000 Pain and Suffering Rs. 5,000 Other Heads Rs. 15,000 Total Rs. 1,52,000 13. In the considered view of this Court, the compensation Awarded to the first respondent under the impugned Award is a just compensation. 14. In the result, there is no merit in the instant appeal. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. 15. The Appellant Insurance Company is directed the deposit the entire award amount to the credit of M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 94 of 2005 along with interest awarded by the Tribunal, less the amount already deposited if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, being made, the first respondent is permitted to withdraw the same on filing an appropriate application. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition No. 1 of 2008 is closed.