JUDGMENT : (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2013 in M.C.O.P.No.274 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Judge), Dindigul.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.274 of 2012 dated 18.03.2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Judge), Dindigul. 2. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the first respondent herein is the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 4 herein are the respondents 1, 2 and 4 in the claim petition. The first respondent has filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.274 of 2012, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant, in an accident that took place on 05.07.2009. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,09,300/- (Rupees One Lakhs Nine Thousand and Three Hundred only) as compensation. Against which, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.274 of 2012 is as follows: On 05.07.2009, at about 01.00 p.m., the petitioner was travelling in a car bearing registration No.TN-37-A-4433 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner along the Dindigul – Kodaikanal road. At that time, another car bearing registration no.TN-02-R-4573 driven by the third respondent came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner's case. The petitioner sustained injuries. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) as compensation. 4. A Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent therein is as follows: The petition is not maintainable. The petition has to prove the validity of the insurance policy. The petitioner has to prove that there is no policy violations. The petitioner is not responsible to pay compensation. The claim is excessive. 5. Brief substance of the counter filed by the fourth respondent therein is as follows: The accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the third respondent. The third respondent was not rash or negligent and the first respondent is responsible for the accident. FIR and chargesheet were registered only against the first respondent. The claim is excessive. 6. On the side of the petitioner, two witness were examined and six documents were marked. On the side of the respondents therein, one witness was examined and one document was marked. FIR and chargesheet were registered only against the first respondent. The claim is excessive. 6. On the side of the petitioner, two witness were examined and six documents were marked. On the side of the respondents therein, one witness was examined and one document was marked. After trial, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,09,300/- (Rupees One Lakh Nine Thousand and Three Hundred only) as compensation to be paid by the appellant. Against which, the appellant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the Tribunal is erroneous in fastening the entire liability on the appellant. The claimant claimed negligence on both the drivers. The criminal Court records are not binding on the Tribunal and negligence has to be independently proved before the Tribunal. In the absence of contra evidence on the side of the fourth respondent, the Tribunal ought to have given importance to the evidence of the first respondent and ought to have fixed the negligence equally on both the drivers. 8. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the policy is only Act policy, which does not cover the occupants of the private car. The Tribunal has erred in following the unreported judgment of this Court and has wrongly interpreted the word “extended cover” and construed the policy as 'comprehensive policy'. The Tribunal has failed to note that the words 'extended cover' means that when a limited liability provided under the Motor Vehicle Act is extended to cover an unlimited liability, on payment of additional premium for that particular item of risk such an act is called extended cover. The Tribunal has failed to note that the payment of premium of Rs.670/- as the basic premium is to cover the damage caused to the vehicle only and it has no relevancy with the risk covered for the occupants of the private car. No premium was paid for covering any other risk, such as paid driver, owner, etc. The total compensation awarded is excessive. 9. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that there was a head on collision involving two cars. The claimant is an eye witness. In the chief examination, he has deposed that both the vehicles were driven in a rash and negligent manner. The fourth respondent did not examine any eye witness. The total compensation awarded is excessive. 9. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that there was a head on collision involving two cars. The claimant is an eye witness. In the chief examination, he has deposed that both the vehicles were driven in a rash and negligent manner. The fourth respondent did not examine any eye witness. 50% negligence should be fixed on the other car that involved in the accident. The policy is only an act policy. There is no coverage for the occupants. 10. On the side of the 4th respondent, it is stated that the fourth respondent is only a formal party. The appellant has not chosen to file a copy of the rough sketch. The appellant has not chosen to examine the driver. No eye witness was examined on the side of the appellant. It is stated that the FIR was against the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant. There is no evidence to fix liability on the fourth respondent. 11. On the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and on the basis of the FIR, it is decided that the second respondent driver is responsible for the accident. 12. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the doctor fixed the disability at 33%. The Tribunal has fixed the disability as 28%, which is excessive and that for a simple fracture, applying multiplier method is not reasonable and that unless there is functional disability, the multiplier method should not be followed. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant would rely upon a judgment passed by this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Veluchamy and another reported in 2005 (1) TNMAC 87, wherein it is stated as follows: “Bodily injury to be treated as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages – Deprivation sustained as a consequence of bodily injuries may bring with it consequence viz. (I) loss of earning & earning capacity (ii)expenses to pay others for what otherwise he would do for himself, and (iii)loss or diminution in full pleasures and joys of living – Amount of damages varies according to gravity of injuries – Therefore, while considering deprivation, Tribunal/Courts should have due regard to gravity and degree of deprivation as well as degree of awareness of deprivation.” 14. The learned counsel for the appellant would rely upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another reported in 2010 (2) TNMAC 581, wherein it is stated as follows: “if it is not permanent disability, no question of proceeding further to determine loss of Earning capacity – but, if on basis of medical evidence, disability is found to be permanent disability, Tribunal has to determine whether such permanent disability affected earning capacity – Ascertainment of effect of permanent disability on actual earning capacity involves three steps:- Firstly, Tribunal to ascertain what activities claimant could carry on, in spite of Permanent Disability and what he could not do as a result of permanent disability – Secondly, to ascertain avocation, profession and nature of work before accident and injured/claimant's age – Thirdly, to find out whether (i)claimant totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood. or (ii)whether in spite of permanent disability claimant could still effectively carry on activities and functions which he was earlier carrying on or (iii)whether he was prevented/restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities or functions so as to continue to earn his livelihood – Percentage of permanent disability with reference to whole body of a person cannot be assumed to be percentage of loss of earning capacity – loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by Tribunal with reference to evidence in entirely – same permanent disability may result in different percentage of loss of earning capacity in different persons depending upon nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors – Illustrated.” 15. The learned counsel for the appellant would rely upon another judgment passed by this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. B.Rayappan and others reported in 2010 (2) TNMAC 581, wherein it is stated as follows: “injured, though can continue to do his contract work, cannot execute contract with much ease............However, Rs. 2,75,000/- awarded towards loss of earning capacity not being in consonance with full Bench decision in Cholan Roadways set aside. Tribunal fixing disability at 25% and applying multiplier method awarded Rs.1,92,000/- towards permanent disability – not proper – Tribunal in case of injury of this nature ought not to have awarded compensation by resorting to multiplier method.” 16. 2,75,000/- awarded towards loss of earning capacity not being in consonance with full Bench decision in Cholan Roadways set aside. Tribunal fixing disability at 25% and applying multiplier method awarded Rs.1,92,000/- towards permanent disability – not proper – Tribunal in case of injury of this nature ought not to have awarded compensation by resorting to multiplier method.” 16. The learned counsel for the appellant would rely upon another judgment passed by this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. G.Ramesh and another reported in 2013 (2) TNMAC 583, wherein it is stated as follows: “Disability assessed at 27% - Tribunal applying multiplier method awarding loss of future income at Rs.2,55,000/- - If proper – contention that Tribunal applied Multiplier method on basis of evidence of doctor, who did not treat claimant and on assumption of likelihood of claimant being thrown out of job – considering young age of claimant as also fact of fast recovery, adopting multiplier method, held, not proper.” 17. The learned counsel for the first respondent would rely upon a judgment passed by this Court in the case of S.Neethipathi v. Managing Director and others reported in 2019 (1) TNMAC 33, wherein it is stated that there was no possibility for the claimant to do any work when the disability was assessed as 60% and that the multiplier method was adopted. 18. It is seen that the first respondent took treatment as 'in patient' for four times. The first respondent undergone surgery on 12.11.2007, 26.01.2009 and on 28.03.2010. The discharge summaries were marked as Ex.P3 to Ex.P6. The doctors assessed the disability as 28%. The wound certificate was marked as Ex.P2 and the disability certificate was marked as Ex.P11. X ray was marked as Ex.P12 and the photographs were marked as Ex.P10. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.56,000/- (Rupees Fifty Six Thousand only) for the disability, Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) for pain and suffering, Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for transportation expenses, Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) for extra nourishment, Rs.500/- (Five Hundred only) for damages to clothes and articles and Rs.32,800/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand and Eight Hundred only) for medical expenses and the award fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable. 19. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that there is no policy coverage for the occupants of the car. 19. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that there is no policy coverage for the occupants of the car. A perusal of the policy reveals that a sum of Rs.670/- was paid towards basic T.P. And a sum of Rs.25/- was paid towards the employee of the owner. There is no wordings in the policy to denote whether the policy is an Act only policy or a comprehensive policy. There is no specific wordings in the policy to denote that there was no coverage for the occupants in the car. It is the duty of the insurance company to give clear details regarding the extend of policy coverage. Failure on the part of the insurance company is fatal. 20. At this juncture, this Court would rely upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Balakrishnan and another in Civil Appeal No.8163 of 2012, wherein it is stated as follows: “It is the admitted position, as the decision would show, the earlier circulars dated 18th March, 1978 and 2nd June, 1986 continue to be valid and effective and all insurance companies are bound to pay the compensation in respect of the liability towards an occupant in a car under the comprehensive/package policy irrespective of the terms and conditions contained in the policy.” 21. Hence, it is decided that there is policy coverage for the occupant of the vehicle and the order passed by the trial Court is reasonable. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is reasonable. 22. The first respondent is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,09,300/- (Rupees One Lakh Nine Thousand and Three Hundred only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. 23. The appellant herein is directed to deposit Rs.1,09,300/- (Rupees One Lakh Nine Thousand and Three Hundred only) with 7.5% interest from date of the claim petition till the date of realization and the amount if not deposited earlier, has to be deposited within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit, the first respondent herein is permitted to withdraw the award amount with proportionate interest after deducting any amount received by R. THARANI, J. MRN him earlier. On such deposit, the first respondent herein is permitted to withdraw the award amount with proportionate interest after deducting any amount received by R. THARANI, J. MRN him earlier. Excess amount, if any deposited shall be refunded to the appellant herein. The claimant is not entitled for interest for the default period, if there is any. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No Costs.