JUDGMENT (Prayer: C.M.A.Nos.902/2020 & 677/2021: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.962 of 2011, on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Coimbatore. C.M.A.No.680/2021: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.1122 of 2011, on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Coimbatore.) Common Judgment: V.M. Velumani, J. 1. C.M.A.No.677 of 2021 is filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.962 of 2011, on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Coimbatore. Seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the said award, the claimant has come out with C.M.A.No.902 of 2020. C.M.A.No.680 of 2021 is filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.1122 of 2011, on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Coimbatore. 2. All the appeals arise out of the same accident and common award and hence, disposed of by this common judgment. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their rank in the claim petitions. 4. The appellant-Insurance Company is the 3rd respondent in M.C.O.P. Nos.962 & 1122 of 2011, on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Coimbatore. The claimant in M.C.O.P.Nos.962 & 1122 of 2011 filed the said claim petitions, claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- respectively as compensation for the injuries sustained by them in the accident that took place on 03.07.2011. 5. According to the claimant in both the claim petitions, on the date of accident, at about 10.15 p.m, when they were travelling in an Omni Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-A-6604, on the Coimbatore to Sathy Road from West to East direction and while nearing Kunnathur Mahaliamman Kovil, the driver of the Omni Bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a tamarind tree on the left side of the road and caused the accident. In the accident, a girl named Aarthi died on the spot and 15 other passengers including the claimants sustained grievous injuries. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Omni Bus. In M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011, the claimant claimed that at the time of accident, one Balaji @ Praveen Kumar was driving the Omni Bus, while in M.C.O.P.No.1122 of 2011, the claimant claimed that at the time of accident, one R.Manikandan was driving the Omni Bus. Hence, the claimant in both the claim petitions filed the said claim petitions, claiming compensation against the respondents 1 to 3 as driver, owner and insurer of the Omni Bus respectively. 6.Sreemani Devi, 2nd respondent who is owner of the Omni Bus filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the claimants in both the claim petitions. According to the 2nd respondent, on 22.08.2010, she sold the Bus bearing Registration No.KA 20A 6604 to the 4th respondent and she was not the owner of the said Bus on the date of the accident. The said Chinnammal/4th respondent became absolute owner of the said Bus and was running the said Bus along with her grandsons Balaji @ Prakash and Dilip Kumar and hence, she is not liable to pay compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions. 7. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter statement denying its liability to pay the compensation. According to the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent having sold the Omni Bus to 4th respondent, has fraudulently taken the insurance policy in her name without disclosing the transfer of Bus. The Registration Number of the Bus was changed as TN 38 BH 8101 from KA 20A 6604. The Omni Bus with Registration No.KA 20A 6604 was not involved in the accident. Hence, the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The permit was obtained for running the Bus as contract carriage. Contrary to the said permit, the Omni Bus was used as a stage carriage. At the time of accident, the Bus did not have Fitness Certificate and driver of the Bus did not possess valid driving license. The Insurance Company also denied the nature of injuries and stated that compensation claimed by both the claimants is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions. 8. At the time of accident, the Bus did not have Fitness Certificate and driver of the Bus did not possess valid driving license. The Insurance Company also denied the nature of injuries and stated that compensation claimed by both the claimants is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions. 8. Based on these averments of the 2nd respondent viz., Sreemani Devi, P.Chinnammal and Manikandan were impleaded as respondents 4 and 5 in M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011 by the order dated 09.06.2014 made in I.A.No.92 of 2013 and P.Chinnammal and Balaji @ Praveen Kumar were impleaded as respondents 4 and 5 in M.C.O.P.No.1122 of 2011 by the order dated 05.04.2014 made in I.A.No.1714 of 2014 and order dated 17.06.2017 made in I.A.No.99 of 2017. 9. Balaji @ Praveen Kumar, the 1st respondent in M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011 and 5th respondent in M.C.O.P.No.1122 of 2011 filed counter statement and denied that he was driving the Omni Bus at the time of accident. According to the him, he was travelling in the said Bus and one Manikandan/5th respondent in M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011 and 1st respondent in M.C.O.P.No.1122 of 2011 was driving the Omni Bus at the time of accident. The accident occurred only due to the mechanical defect of the Omni Bus and not due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Bus. 10. Manikandan/5th respondent in M.C.O.P.No.926 of 2011 and 1st respondent in M.C.O.P.No.1122 of 2011 filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the claimant in both the claim petitions. According to him, at the time of accident, he was driving the Omni Bus and only to avoid hitting on coming vehicle, he turned the Omni Bus to the left and he did not drive the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. He possessed valid driving license and the policy was in force at the time of accident, covering the period from 10.10.2010 to 09.10.2011. 11. Before the Tribunal, joint trial was conducted along with other 3 M.C.O.Ps., but separate evidence was recorded. In M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011, claimant Kavin was examined as P.W.1 at his residence by the Advocate Commissioner and one C.Sivakumar, Sub-Inspector of Police was examined as P.W.2 and 13 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P13. The 2nd respondent examined herself as R.W.1 and one R.Sivakumar, Official from R.T.O. was examined as R.W.2 and 4 documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R4. The 2nd respondent examined herself as R.W.1 and one R.Sivakumar, Official from R.T.O. was examined as R.W.2 and 4 documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R4. In M.C.O.P.No.1122 of 2011, common evidence was recorded along with M.C.O.P.No.1121 of 2011. The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1122 of 2011 was examined as P.W.1, claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1121 of 2011 was examined as P.W.2 and 14 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P14. The 2nd respondent examined herself as R.W.1, one Sukumar was examined as R.W.2 and C.Sivakumar was examined as R.W.3 and 3 documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R3. 22 documents were marked as Exs.X1 to X22. In both the claim petitions, the report of the Medical Board was marked as Ex.C1. 12. The Tribunal considering both the oral and documentary evidence, especially FIR and Final Report, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Omni Bus. At the time of accident, the driver of the Bus possessed valid driving license and the vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant in both the appeals, directed the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.67,83,866/- as compensation to claimant in M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011 and a sum of Rs.1,00,906/- as compensation to the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1122 of 2011. 13.Against the said common award dated 30.08.2019, made in M.C.O.P. Nos.962 & 1122 of 2011, the 3rd respondent - Insurance Company has come out with C.M.A.Nos.677 and 680 of 2021. 14. Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011, the claimant has come out with C.M.A.No.902 of 2020. 15(a). The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal failed to see that the transfer of vehicle and re-registration of vehicle were not informed to the 3rd respondent. The Tribunal failed to note that the vehicle was operated contrary to the permit condition and without proper Registration Number. The permit was granted for using the Bus as contract carriage, whereas, it was used as stage carriage. The respondents 1 and 2, 4 and 5 have not placed the true facts about the ownership, validity of the vehicle and the person who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The permit was granted for using the Bus as contract carriage, whereas, it was used as stage carriage. The respondents 1 and 2, 4 and 5 have not placed the true facts about the ownership, validity of the vehicle and the person who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. In the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report and Final Report filed by the Police, it is stated that the Balaji @ Praveen Kumar/1st respondent in M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011 and 5th respondent in M.C.O.P.No.1122 of 2011 was driving the Bus at the time of accident. The said Balaji @ Praveen Kumar did not possess driving license. The Motor Vehicle Inspector and Police authority are independent agencies. The Tribunal ought to have accepted the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report and Final Report and ought to have held that the said Balaji @ Praveen Kumar was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The Tribunal erred in holding that Manikandan/5th respondent in M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011 and 1st respondent in M.C.O.P.No.1122 of 2011 was driving the vehicle and caused the accident. The respondents 1 and 4 in M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011 viz., Balaji @ Praveen Kumar and P.Chinnammal are relatives. The said Balaji @ Praveen Kumar filed counter statement, but remained exparte. The 4th respondent also remained exparte. Manikandan, 5th respondent in M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011 filed counter statement, admitting his tortuous liability. The Tribunal ought to have taken adverse inference against the respondents 1, 4 and 5 in M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011. The respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 in M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011, in order to make the 3rd respondent Insurance Company liable to pay compensation, have claimed that the 5th respondent/Manikandan was driving the vehicle, as the 1st respondent/Balaji @ Praveen Kumar did not possess driving license at the time of accident. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. 15(b).The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company submitted that owner of the vehicle failed to plead and prove that at the time of accident, authorized person was driving the vehicle and he possessed valid driving license. In view of such failure, he is not liable to pay any compensation. In any event, pay and recovery may be ordered. 15(b).The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company submitted that owner of the vehicle failed to plead and prove that at the time of accident, authorized person was driving the vehicle and he possessed valid driving license. In view of such failure, he is not liable to pay any compensation. In any event, pay and recovery may be ordered. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2018 ACJ 690 [Pappu and others vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another], wherein the relevant paragraph reads as follows: “11. The question is: whether the fact that the offending vehicle bearing No.DIL-5955 was duly insured by respondent No.2 Insurance Company would per se make the Insurance Company liable? This Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), has noticed the defences available to the Insurance Company under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Insurance Company is entitled to take a defence that the offending vehicle was driven by an unauthorised person or the person driving the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence. The onus would shift on the Insurance Company only after the owner of the offending vehicle pleads and proves the basic facts within his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorised by him to drive the vehicle and was having a valid driving licence at the relevant time. In the present case, the respondent No.1 owner of the offending vehicle merely raised a vague plea in the Written Statement that the offending vehicle DIL-5955 was being driven by a person having valid driving licence. He did not disclose the name of the driver and his other details. Besides, the respondent No.1 did not enter the witness box or examine any witness in support of this plea. The respondent No.2 Insurance Company in the Written Statement has plainly refuted that plea and also asserted that the offending vehicle was not driven by an authorised person and having valid driving licence. The respondent No.1 owner of the offending vehicle did not produce any evidence except a driving licence of one Joginder Singh, without any specific stand taken in the pleadings or in the evidence that the same Joginder Singh was, in fact, authorised to drive the vehicle in question at the relevant time. The respondent No.1 owner of the offending vehicle did not produce any evidence except a driving licence of one Joginder Singh, without any specific stand taken in the pleadings or in the evidence that the same Joginder Singh was, in fact, authorised to drive the vehicle in question at the relevant time. Only then would onus shift, requiring the respondent No.2 Insurance Company to rebut such evidence and to produce other evidence to substantiate its defence. Merely producing a valid insurance certificate in respect of the offending Truck was not enough for the respondent No.1 to make the Insurance Company liable to discharge his liability arising from rash and negligent driving by the driver of his vehicle. The Insurance Company can be fastened with the liability on the basis of a valid insurance policy only after the basic facts are pleaded and established by the owner of the offending vehicle - that the vehicle was not only duly insured but also that it was driven by an authorised person having a valid driving licence. Without disclosing the name of the driver in the Written Statement or producing any evidence to substantiate the fact that the copy of the driving licence produced in support was of a person who, in fact, was authorised to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant time, the owner of the vehicle cannot be said to have extricated himself from his liability. The Insurance Company would become liable only after such foundational facts are pleaded and proved by the owner of the offending vehicle.” The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company further submitted that in any event, the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011 viz., Kavin is excessive. The Tribunal failed to consider Ex.C1, wherein it has not been stated that there will not be any improvement in future to presume 100% disability. The Tribunal erred in fixing the notional income of the student at Rs.10,000/- per month and granting 40% enhancement towards future prospects. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards permanent disability, loss of life & amenities and attendant charges are excessive. Having granted a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards water bed and wheel chair, the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- towards future medical expenses without any basis. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards permanent disability, loss of life & amenities and attendant charges are excessive. Having granted a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards water bed and wheel chair, the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- towards future medical expenses without any basis. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and prayed for dismissal of both the claim petitions. 16(a). The learned counsel appearing for the claimant in both the claim petitions submitted that accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the 5th respondent, driver of the Bus. The claimants who are the eyewitnesses to the accident deposed to that effect and proved their claim by letting in oral and documentary evidence. The Tribunal properly appreciated the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Bus. The respondents have not examined either the Balaji @ Praveen Kumar/1st respondent in M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011 or Manikandan/5th respondent in M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011 to prove the case of the 3rd respondent. 16(b). The learned counsel appearing for the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011 submitted that the claimant was a student studying B.A. Economics in Loyola College and he is a State Level Badminton Player. The Tribunal erred in fixing a meagre sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as notional income of the claimant and granted only 40% enhancement towards future prospects. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant is in vegetative state and requires attender throughout his life. He was aged 20 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal erroneously fixed 25 years for granting attendant charges and future medical expenses. The claimant have to use water bed and wheel chair through out his life and he has to use wheel chair even for attending his nature calls. The Tribunal has awarded only a meagre sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards water bed and wheel chair. The amounts awarded under different heads are meagre and prayed for enhancement of the compensation granted by the Tribunal and dismissal of the appeal in C.M.A.No.677 of 2021, filed by the Insurance Company. 17. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent- Sreemani Devi contended that 5 claim petitions were filed claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the very same accident. 17. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent- Sreemani Devi contended that 5 claim petitions were filed claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the very same accident. All the 5 M.C.O.P.s were taken up together and common award was passed. The findings are all in favour of the 2nd respondent/owner and against the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company filed only two appeals against two claim petitions and accepted their liability in other 3 claim petitions. In view of the same, the present two appeals filed against the 2nd respondent is not maintainable on the Principles of resjudicata and prayed for dismissal of the appeals against the 2nd respondent. 18. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company, claimant in both the claim petitions as well as the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the entire materials available on record. 19. From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the case of the claimant in both the claim petitions that while they were travelling in the Omni Bus owned by the 2nd respondent, the driver of the Bus drove the same at high speed in rash and negligent manner and failed to reduce the speed, inspite of request made by the passengers. Due to high speed and rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Omni Bus, the accident has occurred. The claimants herein and claimants in other claim petitions have let in evidence to substantiate their case. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company has not examined any witness to show that only Balaji @ Praveen Kumar/1st respondent in M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011 was driving the Bus at the time of accident, he did not possess driving license and in any event, the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Bus. The 3rd respondent- Insurance Company, in support of his case that Balaji @ Praveen Kumar/1st respondent in M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011 was driving the Omni Bus, relied on the Final Report and Motor Vehicle Inspector's report. The Sub-Inspector of Police was examined as R.W.3 in M.C.O.P.Nos.1121 and 1122 of 2022, who deposed that Final Report has been filed against Manikandan, 1st respondent in M.C.O.P.No.1122 of 2022. From the materials on record, it is seen that FIR was registered based on the statement given by injured Jagadeesh in the Hospital. The Sub-Inspector of Police was examined as R.W.3 in M.C.O.P.Nos.1121 and 1122 of 2022, who deposed that Final Report has been filed against Manikandan, 1st respondent in M.C.O.P.No.1122 of 2022. From the materials on record, it is seen that FIR was registered based on the statement given by injured Jagadeesh in the Hospital. The Tribunal, considering the statement, has held that Jagadeesh has stated only name of Manikandan as driver of the Omni Bus. The Final Report cannot be a conclusive proof to give a finding as to who was driving the Bus at the time of accident. Similarly, as far as the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report is concerned, the accident occurred on 03.07.2011 and vehicle was inspected only on 12.07.2011. The Motor Vehicle Inspector recorded the name of the driver based on hearsay. The Tribunal rightly did not accept the evidence of R.W.3 in M.C.O.P.No.1122 of 2011, Final Report and Motor Vehicle Inspector's report. Balaji @ Praveen Kumar/1st respondent in M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011 filed counter statement denying that he was driving the Omni Bus at the time of accident. Manikandan/5th respondent in M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011 filed counter statement admitting that he was driving the Omni Bus at the time of accident. The 2nd respondent as R.W.1 in M.C.O.P.No.118 of 2017, connected claim petition, deposed that 5th respondent was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Considering all these materials, the Tribunal has held that Manikandan/5th respondent in M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011 was driving the vehicle and not Balaji @ Praveen Kumar/1st respondent in M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011. The Tribunal considering the evidence of R.W.2 in M.C.O.P.No.118 of 2017, an Assistant from R.T.O, Coimbatore, held that the said Manikandan, 5th respondent in M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011, was possessing driving license to drive the Bus at the time of accident. The Tribunal considering the evidence of claimants and in the absence of any contra evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Bus, the 5th respondent in M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011. 20. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company that owner of the vehicle did not plead and prove that authorised person was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and that he possessed valid driving license is contrary to the materials available on record. 20. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company that owner of the vehicle did not plead and prove that authorised person was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and that he possessed valid driving license is contrary to the materials available on record. The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1122 of 2011 pleaded that only Balaji @ Praveen Kumar was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and he possessed valid driving license. The 2nd respondent, as R.W.1 in connected claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.118 of 2017, deposed that Manikandan was driving the vehicle. In the said M.C.O.P., an Assistant from R.T.O. was examined as R.W.2, who deposed that Manikandan had valid driving license. It is proved that Manikandan, authorised person with valid driving license was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and 3rd respondent failed to rebut the same by letting in evidence to show that Balaji @ Praveen Kumar was driving the offending vehicle. In view of such material available on record, the 3rd respondent is liable to pay compensation and is not entitled to pay and recovery. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 21. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent- Insurance Company that the 2nd respondent violated the permit condition by using the vehicle as stage carriage while permit was granted only for contract carriage is concerned, the Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that application for Re-registration was filed by the 2nd respondent viz., Sreemani Devi on 06.10.2010 and re-registration was ordered on 03.06.2011. Ex.X2, copy of the Registration Certificate shows that owner of the Bus bearing Registration No.KA 20A 6604 was transferred in the name of Sreemani Devi. The Insurance policy marked as Ex.X15, issued by the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company was taken on 10.10.2010 and the same is valid till 09.10.2011. The new Registration No.TN 38 PH 8101 for the Bus was given only on 30.06.2011. The accident occurred within 3 days from the date when the new number was given by R.T.O. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company that owner Sreemani Devi obtained insurance by misrepresentation cannot be accepted. The new Registration No.TN 38 PH 8101 for the Bus was given only on 30.06.2011. The accident occurred within 3 days from the date when the new number was given by R.T.O. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company that owner Sreemani Devi obtained insurance by misrepresentation cannot be accepted. The Tribunal considering the fact that the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company failed to prove that Re-registration was intimated to the owner before the date of accident, did not accept the case of 3rd respondent and held that their contention that owner Sreemani Devi obtained insurance by misrepresentation cannot be accepted. 22. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, Sreemani Devi that the appeal against the 2nd respondent is hit by Principles of Resjudicata is not acceptable, in view of the fact that the claimants in all the claim petitions are different and quantum of compensation claimed are different. 23. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company has not challenged the quantum of compensation granted to the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1122 of 2011 and has questioned only the quantum granted by the Tribunal to the claimant viz., Kavin in M.C.O.P.No.926 of 2011. 24. At the time of accident, the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.926 of 2011 viz., Kavin was a student studying B.A. Economics and is a non-earning member. The accident is of the year 2011. Considering the year of accident and qualification of the claimant, the notional income of Rs.10,000/- per month fixed by the claimant is correct and there is no reason either to enhance or to reduce the said amount. The Medical Board has examined the claimant viz., Kavin and certified that the claimant has suffered 100% permanent disability. The Tribunal considering Ex.C1 – disability certificate issued by the Medical Board and discharge summaries, wound certificate, found that claimant suffered following injuries: 1. Laceration over right eye brow 2. Laceration over lateral aspect of left arm 3. Massive crush injury of the left elbow and proximal part of left forearm exposing muscle, tendon, bone with gross contamination with mud. 4. Swelling, deformity, tenderness, abnormal mobility over left arm. 5. Swelling, deformity, abnormal mobility over left elbow and the left forearm. 6. Distal pulses felt. Laceration over lateral aspect of left arm 3. Massive crush injury of the left elbow and proximal part of left forearm exposing muscle, tendon, bone with gross contamination with mud. 4. Swelling, deformity, tenderness, abnormal mobility over left arm. 5. Swelling, deformity, abnormal mobility over left elbow and the left forearm. 6. Distal pulses felt. From Ex.C1 – report received from the Medical Board, Government Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, it is seen that the claimant has sustained quadriplegia, Neuro genic bladder, bower dysfunction and left elbow deformity. His permanent physical impairment is 100%. The 3rd respondent - Insurance Company has not let in any contra evidence to the medical evidence to show that claimant has not suffered 100% disability and he is not in vegetative state. Considering Ex.C1, the Tribunal has rightly adopted multiplier method and granted compensation towards loss of income for 100% disability. There is no error in the said finding. In addition to the same, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards permanent disability. In view of granting compensation towards loss of income for 100% disability, the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- granted towards permanent disability is set aside. The claimant has not let in any evidence to show that he requires compensation for future medical expenses. The Tribunal taking into consideration the nature of injuries, has granted a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month for 25 years towards future medical expenses. There is no basis for granting Rs.9,00,000/- for 25 years towards future medical expenses. Considering the nature of injuries and health condition of claimant, we are of the opinion that amount granted for future medical expenses is excessive, but he will be requiring some amount towards future medical expenses. Hence, the amount granted towards future medical expenses is reduced to Rs.2,00,000/- from Rs.9,00,000/-. The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of marital life. The same is in order. In addition to these amounts, the Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for loss of enjoyment of life and amenities. The claimant is not entitled for the said amount and hence, the same is set aside. In addition to granting Rs.3,00,000/- for pain and sufferings and Rs.6,00,000/- for attendant charges, the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for family pain and sufferings. The claimant is not entitled for the said amount and hence, the same is set aside. In addition to granting Rs.3,00,000/- for pain and sufferings and Rs.6,00,000/- for attendant charges, the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for family pain and sufferings. In view of granting Rs.3,00,000/- for pain and sufferings, the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- granted for family pain and sufferings is set aside. Without any basis, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards attendant charges. The said amount is excessive. The claimant was taking treatment as in-patient at Hospital from 04.07.2011 to 01.09.2011. He is bedridden and using wheel chair for his day-to-day activities. Considering the period of treatment, nature of injuries and requirement of claimant, the amount awarded towards attendant charges is reduced to Rs.3,00,000/-. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are just and reasonable and hence, the same are hereby confirmed. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows: S. No Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs) Award confirmed or enhanced or granted 1. Loss of income 30,24,000/- 30,24,000/- Confirmed 2. Pain and sufferings 3,00,000/- 3,00,000/- Confirmed 3. Medical expenses 3,59,866/- 3,59,866/- Confirmed 4. Future medical expenses 9,00,000/- 2,00,000/- Reduced 5. Permanent disability 3,00,000/- - Set aside 6. Loss of marital life 3,00,000/- 3,00,000/- Confirmed 7. Loss of enjoyment of life and amenities 3,00,000/- - Set aside 8. Extra nourishment 50,000/- 50,000/- Confirmed 9. Attendant charges 6,00,000/- 3,00,000/- Reduced 10. Transport charges 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/- Confirmed 11. Water bed and wheel chair 2,50,000/- 2,50,000/- Confirmed 12. Family pain and sufferings 3,00,000/- - Set aside Total 67,83,866/- 48,83,866/- Reduced by Rs.19,00,000/- 25. In the result, (i)C.M.A.No.902 of 2020 is dismissed and C.M.A.No.677 of 2021 is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.67,83,866/- is modified to Rs.48,83,866/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.962 of 2011. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the excess amount lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011, if the entire award amount has already been deposited by them. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. (ii).In the result, C.M.A.No.680 of 2021 is dismissed and the amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,00,906/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit is confirmed. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said award amount, along with interest and costs, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.1122 of 2011. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.