JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the judgment and decree made in MCOP.No.466 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), Tirunelveli dated 21.11.2007.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2007 made in MCOP.No.466 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II Additional District Judge) Tirunelveli. 2. The petition averments in brief is as follows: 2.1. The petitioner was aged about 19 years at the time of accident. On 06.03.2007 at about 6.30 p.m., the petitioner was travelling in the motor cycle bearing registration No.72-M-8163 along with his friend as the pillion rider from Tirunelveli to Kupanapuram. When the motor cycle was reaching near Ramayanpatti in front of the corporation waste yard on the Tirunelveli to Sankarankoil main road from south to north, the bus bearing registration No.TN-72-Y-7979 belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent was driven by its driver in a high speed with rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle. As a result, the petitioner as well as the rider of the motor cycle was thrown out and sustained injuries. Immediately, they were taken to TVMC hospital. The petitioner incurred heavy expenditure towards his treatment in the hospital. Therefore, he filed M.C.O.P.No. 466 of 2007 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), Tirunelveli, claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. 3. In the counter statement, the second respondent/Insurance Company denied the mode of accident. The investigation reveals that the motor cycle rider had driven the motor cycle without observing the traffic rules and playing with the pillion ride which caused the motor bike to turn up to the wrong side which caused the accident. The deceased was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident. The various amounts claimed by the petitioner is high and excessive. In support of his contention he has relied upon the order of this Court in C.R.P(PD).No.3685 of 2007, in which, paragraph 14 reads as follows: “14. The purpose of production of a disability certificate was only for assessment of the percentage of disability. The Tribunal was not bound to accept the disability certificate as a gospel truth. In support of his contention he has relied upon the order of this Court in C.R.P(PD).No.3685 of 2007, in which, paragraph 14 reads as follows: “14. The purpose of production of a disability certificate was only for assessment of the percentage of disability. The Tribunal was not bound to accept the disability certificate as a gospel truth. The disability certificate has to be proved like any other document in the manner known to law. The burden of proof is always on the claimant to prove the disability. The extent of proof required for providing a disability certificate depends upon the facts of a given case. In case the disability certificate was issued by the medical officer, who had the benefit of treating the injured, such medical officer would be in a better position to tender evidence with reference to the injury sustained by the claimant, treatment given, extent of permanent disability as well as the loss of earning capacity. However, in cases, wherein certificates were issued by the Medical Officers other than the Doctor, who treated the injured, the evidence of such medical officers require strict scrutiny. However, it cannot be said that such certificates are inadmissible in evidence. The evidence so tendered by the Doctor, who had no opportunity to treat the injured, should be convincing and it should be based on accepted norms. It is only the standard of proof which would differ”. 4. On the side of the petitioner, P.W1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P.17 were marked. No evidence and documents were marked on the side of the respondents. 5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal has determined the disability that was deposed by P.W.3, the doctor at 51%, has been taken by the Tribunal at 25% and awarded a total compensation of Rs.69,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum under the following heads:- Disability Rs. 60,000/- Transport expenses Rs. 750/- Nutrition Rs. 2,000/- Pain and sufferings Rs. 5,000/- Loss of income Rs. 1250/- Total Rs.69,000/- Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant/claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal ought to have fixed the income as Rs.5,000/- per month and the loss of income has to be determined on the said basis. 5,000/- Loss of income Rs. 1250/- Total Rs.69,000/- Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant/claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal ought to have fixed the income as Rs.5,000/- per month and the loss of income has to be determined on the said basis. The Tribunal has not proper in reducing the disability from 51% to 25% and he has not awarded any sum for loss of amenities. Hence, the disability and loss of income has not been properly assessed by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal ought to have granted Rs.25,000/- under the head of pain and suffering instead of Rs.5,000/-, since it is a grievous injury. Further, the Tribunal ought to have granted Rs.25,000/- under the head of loss of amenities as per Judgment reported in 2006(3) Law Weekly 1025. The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the Judgment reported in 2008 ACJ Page 8, which clearly says that compensation should be granted under two heads (a) Disability and (b) loss of income. In support of his contention he has also relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009(1) TN MAC 23 (SC) in G.Gnanam @ Gnanamoorthy Vs. Metropolitan Transport Corporation. 7. On perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, there is no sum awarded under the head of attendance charges and loss of amenities. Considering the treatment taken by the appellant, pain and suffering fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- is also a very meagre amount. 8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 9. Due to the injuries, the appellant would not have been able to work at least for a period of two months. Therefore, a sum of Rs.6,000/- (2 x Rs.3,000/-) is awarded under the head of loss of income as against Rs.1,250/- awarded by the learned Judge. Due to the injuries, the appellant would have experienced severe pain, for which, Rs.5,000/- is awarded by the learned Judge which is inadequate. Therefore, the said award is increased to Rs.10,000/-. The award of Rs.750/- towards transport expenses is also inadequate and the same is increased to Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- towards nutrition awarded by the learned Judge is increased to Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, the said award is increased to Rs.10,000/-. The award of Rs.750/- towards transport expenses is also inadequate and the same is increased to Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- towards nutrition awarded by the learned Judge is increased to Rs.10,000/-. Applying maximum rate viz., Rs.2,000/- per 1% disability, it comes Rs.1,02,000/- (51% X 2000) against Rs.60,000/- is awarded by the learned Judge under the head of disability. Accordingly, the total compensation is modified as apportioned hereunder:- Loss of income (3000x2) Rs. 6,000/- Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- Nutrition Rs. 10,000/- Pain and sufferings Rs. 10,000/- Disability(51%X2000) Rs.1,02,000/- Total Rs.1,33,000/- (Less)Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 69,000/- Enhanced compensation Rs. 64,000/- 10. The appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.64,000/- in addition to Rs.69,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the modified compensation of Rs.1,33,000/-, less the amount already deposited, if any, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, to the credit of the claim petition within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same by filing appropriate application before the learned Judge. 11. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs.