JUDGMENT (Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 13.03.2015 passed in M.C.O.P.No.977 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional Sub Judge, Additional Sub-Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pondicherry.) 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sub Judge, Additional Sub-Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pondicherry in M.C.O.P.No.977 of 2012. 2. The accident occurred on 17.10.2012 at about 10.10 hours at the Junction of Villianur Main Road and Jaya Nagar, Reddiyarpalayam, Puducherry. 3. The Tribunal entertained the claim petition and adjudicated the issues with reference to liability and quantum. 4. As far as the liability is concerned, the Tribunal arrived a conclusion that the accident was happened due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing Registration No.PY-01-AV 6008 by the driver of the first respondent before the Tribunal. 5. As far as the coverage of policy is concerned, the Tribunal arrived a conclusion that it is covered by valid policy and proper documents were filed as contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and therefore, the appellant is entitled for compensation. While fixing the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considered the Doctor's evidence, wherein the Doctor granted the certificate of disability as 48%. The nature of injuries considered in the disability certificate are extracted hereunder:- “1. Significantlyu malunited comminuted inter condylar fracture Tibia right knee with a plate and 8 screws in situ (out of 8 screws, 1 screw is outside plate with calus with a vertical incissional healed old scar about 2.0 c.m. Length extending from right knee to mid ½ of (R) leg, anterior aspect (-) (That one screw is mobile and palpable under the skin). 2. Recurrent edema of right leg proximal 1/2 and right knee - 8% 3. Complaining of severe pain on and off right knee and right leg with tenderness at fractured site and implant site - 8% 4. Muscle wasting of right leg and right knee - 8% 5. Muscle weakness of right knee and right leg with power 4/5 - 7% 6. Restriction in movements of right knee 10 degree in extension, 30 degree in flexion (measured by Goniometry) with difficulty in walking long distance, climbing staircase up and down, sitting on floor, squatting, lifting and carrying weights and driving vehicles - 9% 7. Muscle weakness of right knee and right leg with power 4/5 - 7% 6. Restriction in movements of right knee 10 degree in extension, 30 degree in flexion (measured by Goniometry) with difficulty in walking long distance, climbing staircase up and down, sitting on floor, squatting, lifting and carrying weights and driving vehicles - 9% 7. Discharging sinus present at right leg over right Tibial ruberosity area - 8%.” 6. However, during the course of evidence, PW-2 Doctor, has stated that he has not given any treatment to the appellant, but he is an Orthopaedic Surgeon. The Tribunal therefore, considered the disability certificate issued by PW-2 Doctor and some of the assessments are found incorrect or not in consonance with the claim set out in the claim petition. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the disability as 35%. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the quantum of compensation is improper in view of the fact that the appellant suffered permanent disability, which was assessed as 48% by the Doctor (PW-2), who is an Orthopedic Surgeon and the Tribunal reduced the disability without any proper appreciation. The Tribunal has not granted adequate time in respect of pain and sufferings and under various heads. Thus, the compensation requires enhancement. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/Insurance Company objected the said submissions by stating that the Certificate issued by the Doctor cannot be trusted upon on the ground that Serial Nos.4 and 5, which states that Musclem wasting of right leg and right knee are connected with each other and different fixation of disability for the same is improper. 9. This apart, Serial No.7 speaks about discharging sinus present at right leg over right Tibial ruberosity area by the Doctor fixed as 8% disability, which is absolutely unacceptable and therefore, the same cannot be trusted upon and under these circumstances, the Tribunal has considered the other factors and granted compensation, which cannot be said as improper or perverse. 10. Considering the Certificate issued by the Doctor for discharging sinus present at right leg over right Tibial ruberosity area, the fixation of 8% disability, cannot be accepted and this apart, Serial Nos.4 and 5, as stated above, are repetitions and fixation of 15% disability is also excessive. 11. 10. Considering the Certificate issued by the Doctor for discharging sinus present at right leg over right Tibial ruberosity area, the fixation of 8% disability, cannot be accepted and this apart, Serial Nos.4 and 5, as stated above, are repetitions and fixation of 15% disability is also excessive. 11. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to reduce the percentage of disability and thus, the disability accepted by the Tribunal as 35% deserves no further interference. However, the Tribunal has granted less compensation for pain and sufferings, rich and nutritious food and transport expenses and these three heads require enhancement. 12. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.1,90,110/-, granted by the Tribunal, is enhanced to Rs.2,40,110/-, the details of which are given below:- Rs. Permanent disability 1,05,000/- Pain and Sufferings 50,000/- Medical Expenses 5,110/- Loss of income for 6 months 60,000/- Rich and Nutritious Food 10,000/- Transport expenses 10,000/- 2,40,110/- Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellant comes to Rs.2,40,110/- 13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent/Insurance Company made a submission that the Award amount has already been deposited. Thus, the enhanced compensation with accrued interest is directed to be deposited by the second respondent/Insurance Company, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire Award amount with accrued interest by filing an appropriate application and the payments are to be made only through RTGS. 14. Accordingly, C.M.A. No.1423 of 2016 stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.