JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P. No. 243 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate) Tuticorin, dated 28.05.2020. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P. No. 244 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate) Tuticorin, dated 28.05.2020.) Common Judgment: 1. C.M.A.(MD)No.955 of 2012 has been filed against the award, dated 29.04.2011, made in M.C.O.P.No.243 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – I Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the first respondent herein is the claimant and the second respondent herein is the first respondent in the original claim petition. 2. C.M.A.(MD)No.956 of 2012 has been filed against the award, dated 29.04.2011, made in M.C.O.P.No.244 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – I Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the first respondent herein is the claimant and the second respondent herein is the first respondent in the original claim petition. 3. Brief substance of the petition in M.C.O.P.No.243 of 2014 is as follows:- On 30.05.2013, the petitioner travelled as a pillion rider in a Scooty bearing Registration No.TN-69-AH-4956 along with her father and 3 years old child- Anumithra along the Thoothukudi to Palayamkottai road, near VVD junction, at that time a tipper lorry bearing registration No.TN-69-AZ-3366, driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Scooty. The petitioner sustained injuries. She was given first aid in Thoothukudi Government Hospital, then, she was admitted as inpatient in AVM Hospital. Her right leg was amputated, below the knee joint. She took treatment as inpatient from 30.05.2013 till 13.06.2013, again, she took treatment as inpatient from 13.06.2013 till 17.06.2013, the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation. 4. Brief substance of the petition, in M.C.O.P.No.244/ 2015, is as follows:- In the accident, the petitioner who was a pillion rider, viz., Minor.Anumithra, sustained injuries. Her left eye lid was affected. There were several scares on the face. She took treatment as inpatient from 30.05.2013 till 21.06.2013, again, she took treatment as inpatient from 21.01.2014 till 24.01.2014, she undergone surgeries. Brief substance of the petition, in M.C.O.P.No.244/ 2015, is as follows:- In the accident, the petitioner who was a pillion rider, viz., Minor.Anumithra, sustained injuries. Her left eye lid was affected. There were several scares on the face. She took treatment as inpatient from 30.05.2013 till 21.06.2013, again, she took treatment as inpatient from 21.01.2014 till 24.01.2014, she undergone surgeries. Since the left eye lid is not available, there is possibility of dust particles to entire the eye. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation. 5. Brief substance of the counter filed by the first respondent, in both M.C.O.P.No.243 of 2014 and M.C.O.P.No.244 of 2014 , is as follows:- The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle - tipper lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-69-AZ-3366. It was the rider of the scooty, who crossed the road, without observing the traffic. The tipper lorry was insured with the second respondent. The Insurance policy was in force at the time of accident. The driver of the lorry was having valid driving licence. The claim is excessive. The second respondent is liable to pay compensation. 6. Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.243 of 2014, is as follows:- The petitioner has to prove the manner of the accident, injuries, mode of treatment, medical expenses. The petitioner has to prove that she has spent Rs.1,03,938/- for medical expenses, she has to prove that she spent Rs.1,25,250/- to fix artificial leg and she need future medical expenses. It was the rider of the scooty, who crossed the road, without observing the upcoming lorry. The petitioner has to prove that the lorry was insured with the respondent and the Insurance was in force. The petitioner has to prove that the lorry driver has valid driving licence. 7. Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent in M.C.O.P.No. 244 of 2014 is as follows:- The petitioner has to prove the manner of the accident, injuries, mode of treatment, medical expenses. The petitioner has to prove that she has spent Rs.4,55,154/- for medical expenses and she need future medical expenses. It was the rider of the scooty, who crossed the road, without observing the upcoming lorry. The petitioner has to prove that the lorry was insured with the respondent and the Insurance was in force. The petitioner has to prove that the lorry driver was having valid driving licence. 8. It was the rider of the scooty, who crossed the road, without observing the upcoming lorry. The petitioner has to prove that the lorry was insured with the respondent and the Insurance was in force. The petitioner has to prove that the lorry driver was having valid driving licence. 8. In M.C.O.P.No.243 of 2017, on the side of the claimant, 2 witnesses were examined and 26 documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked. One document was marked as Court document. In M.C.O.P.No.243 of 2017, on the side of the claimant, 1 witnesses were examined and 15 documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked. One document was marked as Court document. After considering both sides, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.29,60,249/- in M.C.O.P.No.243 of 2017 as compensation and the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 11,70,154/- as compensation in M.C.O.P.No.244 of 2014. CMA(MD)No.955 of 2021: 9. Against the award, M.C.O.P.No.243 of 2014 the appellant / Insurance Company has filed the appeal in C.M.A.(MD) No. 955 of 2021 the following grounds:- The Tribunal has erred in fixing the income as Rs.12,000/- per month. On the date of accident, the injured was not carrying any avocation. The Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier 14' instead of 15'. The Tribunal ought not to have awarded Rs.10,00,000/- as future medical expenses. The Tribunal ought not to have awarded interest for future medical expenses. The amount awarded is excessive. 10. On the side of the appellant, is is stated that the claimant was not doing any avocation at the time of accident. It was stated that the claimant was working as a teacher in a coaching centre and she left the job and on the date of accident, she was not doing any job, but, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.12,000/- per month as loss of income. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,00,000/- towards future medical expenses. There is no functional disability. The claimant can continue her work of teaching with the artificial leg. For pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation, which is excessive. The Tribunal is wrong in awarding interest for future medical expenses. 11. On the side of the first respondent / claimant, it is stated that the claimant / Sangeetha sustained grievous injuries. The claimant can continue her work of teaching with the artificial leg. For pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation, which is excessive. The Tribunal is wrong in awarding interest for future medical expenses. 11. On the side of the first respondent / claimant, it is stated that the claimant / Sangeetha sustained grievous injuries. The right leg was amputated below the knee. An artificial leg has to be replaced once in 5 years, and that Rs.10,00,000/- was awarded for the same. The claimant was working as a teacher and by taking tuition, she was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The Tribunal has fixed the income as Rs.12,000/- per month. The award on various heads is very reasonable. 12. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the claimant resigned her job two years prior to the date of accident. She resigned her job to take care of her child, after having artificial leg, there may not be any functional disability in taking tuition and that the Tribunal is wrong in applying multiplier method. 13. Copy of the FIR was marked as Ex.P1. Copy of the judgment in STC.No.286 of 2013 was marked as Ex.P26. On the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and on the basis of Ex.P1 and Ex.P26, the Tribunal has fixed the liability on the driver of the tipper lorry. There is no witness or documents on the side of the appellant. From the counter filed by the Insurance Company before the tribunal, it is clear that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. There is no contra evidence on the side of the appellant / Insurance Company in the original claim petition. In view of the same, it is decided that the policy was inforce at the time of accident. 14. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income as Rs.12,000/-, whereas, the claimant resigned her job two years prior to the date of accident. From the records, it is seen that claimant/ Sangeetha has resigned her job, two years prior to the date of accident. It is stated that the claimant was receiving Rs.12,000/- as a teacher in a coaching centre and she was earning Rs.15,000/- from taking tuition at home. Certificate issued by the coaching centre was marked as Ex.P9. From the records, it is seen that claimant/ Sangeetha has resigned her job, two years prior to the date of accident. It is stated that the claimant was receiving Rs.12,000/- as a teacher in a coaching centre and she was earning Rs.15,000/- from taking tuition at home. Certificate issued by the coaching centre was marked as Ex.P9. Copy of the provisional certificate issued by the University were marked as Ex.P20, Ex.P21 and Ex.P22. From Ex.P20 to P.22, it is clear that the claimant was having the qualification to take tuition. It is seen that the claimant has completed B.Sc (Chemistry) and M.Sc.(Socialogy). The income through tuition will be lesser than for a person, who has not completed M.Sc (Chemistry). In the above circumstances, the monthly income is reduced to Rs.10,000/- per month. The disability is 60% the claimant is entitled for Rs.6,000/- per month. Considering the age of the petitioner, multiplier 15' is to be applied. After applying multiplier 15', the loss of income is calculated at Rs.10,80,000/- (Rs.6,000/- X 12 X 15 = Rs.10,80,000/-). 15. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,00,000/- for future medical expenses, which is very excessive. On the side of the first respondent / claimant, it is stated that the artificial leg has to be replaced once in five years and the claimant has to replace the easy liner once in six months. 16. It is seen that the claimant has to change the artificial leg once in five years and the claimant is in need of future medical expenses. But, since the amount was not yet spent by the petitioner, the claimant is not entitled for claiming interest for the future medical expenses of Rs.10,00,000/-. 17. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,34,249/- towards medical expenses, Rs.60,000/- towards attender charges, Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- towards transport expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. The calculation of compensation is as follows:- Loss Of Income Rs. 10,80,000 For Attender Charges Rs. 20,000/- For Pain And Suffering Rs. 50,000/- For Transport Expenses Rs. 15,000/- For Extra Nourishment Rs. 5,000/- For Medical Expenses Rs.4,34,249/- For Future Medical Expenses Rs.10,00,000/- Rs.26,04,249/- 18. In total the claimant/Sangeetha is entitled for a sum of Rs.26,04,249/- as compensation and the same is rounded off to Rs.26,04,500/-. C.M.A No. 956 of 2021 19. 10,80,000 For Attender Charges Rs. 20,000/- For Pain And Suffering Rs. 50,000/- For Transport Expenses Rs. 15,000/- For Extra Nourishment Rs. 5,000/- For Medical Expenses Rs.4,34,249/- For Future Medical Expenses Rs.10,00,000/- Rs.26,04,249/- 18. In total the claimant/Sangeetha is entitled for a sum of Rs.26,04,249/- as compensation and the same is rounded off to Rs.26,04,500/-. C.M.A No. 956 of 2021 19. Against the award, in M.C.O.P No. 244 of 2014 the appellant / Insurance Company filed the appeal in C.M.A.(MD)No.956 of 2021 on the following grounds:- The tribunal awarded Rs.11,70,154/- as compensation for 20% permanent disability, which is very excessive. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.1,00,000/- towards disfigurement, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of expectation of life, Rs.1,00,000/- towards attender charges and these charges are liable to be set aside. 20. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that for a minor, who sustained 20% disability, the tribunal has awarded Rs.4,000/- per percentage, and for pain and suffering, the tribunal has awarded Rs.3,00,000/- and for other conventional heads, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,00,000/-, which are all excessive. A judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2013-ACJ-2445 [Mallikarjun V. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.,] is cited. 21. On the side of the first respondent / claimant, it is stated that the claimant is a 3 years old child, she lost her left eye lid, her face was completely damaged. Though Rs.50,00,000/- was claimed as compensation, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.11,70,154/-, which is very low. The claimant is a female child. Due to disfigurement, her marriage prospects is affected and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very low. 22. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,55,154/- towards medical expenses and Rs.3,00,000/- for pain and suffering. Considering the age of the claimant and considering the nature of injuries, the amount awarded towards pain and suffering is reasonable. Considering the fact that the claimant is a female child, disfigurement of the face is a loss to the child and hence, the amount awarded towards disfigurement and expectation of life is reasonable. Taking care of the child, whose eye lid was affected, need the help of an attender.. The attender charges is to be fixed as Rs.50,000/- , for transport expenses, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- and the same is reduced to Rs.10,000/-. For extra nourishment, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- which is reasonable. Taking care of the child, whose eye lid was affected, need the help of an attender.. The attender charges is to be fixed as Rs.50,000/- , for transport expenses, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- and the same is reduced to Rs.10,000/-. For extra nourishment, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- which is reasonable. The compensation is calculated as follows:- For 20 % disability Rs. 80,000/- For medical expenses Rs. 4,55,154/- For pain and suffering Rs.3,00,000/- For disfigurement Rs. 1,00,000/- For expectation of life Rs.1,00,000/- For attender charges Rs. 50,000/- For transport expenses Rs. 10,000/- For extra nourishment Rs. 15,000/- Total compensation Rs.11,10,154/- 23. In total, the claimant is entitled to Rs.11,10,154/- and the same is rounded off to Rs.11,10,500/-. 24. CMA(MD)No.955 of 2021 is partly allowed. The compensation amount is reduced from Rs.29,60,249/- to Rs.26,04,500/- (i) The claimant / Sangeetha is entitled to Rs.26,04,500/- as compensation. Out of the sum of Rs.26,04,500/- the claimant is not entitled for interest for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (future medical expenses) and for the balance of Rs.16,04,500/-, she is entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. (ii) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount with interest as stated above and with costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) On such deposit being made by the Insurance Company, the first respondent / claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount with accrued interest and costs, on filing of proper petition before the Tribunal, less any amount, already withdrawn by her. 25. CMA(MD)No.956 of 2021 is partly allowed. The compensation is reduced from Rs. 11,70,154/- to Rs.11,10,500/-. (i) The claimant / Minor.Anumithra is entitled to Rs.11,10,500/- as compensation. (ii) The appellant -Insurance Company, is directed to deposit the entire compensation of Rs.11,10,500/- (if not already deposited) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and with costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) The appellant -Insurance Company, is directed to deposit the entire compensation of Rs.11,10,500/- (if not already deposited) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and with costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) On such deposit being made by the Insurance Company, the Tribunal is directed to deposit the share of the minor claimant / first respondent herein in any one of the Nationalised Banks, in a Fixed Deposit scheme, till she attains majority. Muthusaravan, who is the father and guardian of the minor claimant, is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months directly from the bank, only for the welfare of minor. The claimant is not entitled for interest for the default period, if there is any. 29. In the result, these appeals are partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.