JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgmentr and decree made in M.C.O.P.No. 659 of 2016, dated 21.08.2020, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Special Sub-Court), Madurai.) 1. The Insurance Company is the appellant herein. The first respondent herein has filed M.C.O.P.No.659 of 2016 claiming compensation for the injury sustained by him in the Road Traffic Accident. 2. The factum of the accident, the manner of the accident and the negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent/second respondent vehicle are not disputed. Hence the finding rendered by the Tribunal in respect of the same, stands confirmed. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would contend that while the Doctor, who had examined the injured had issued Ex.X1- Disability Certificate assessing the disability at 80%. The Tribunal has awarded functional disabililty at 90%. Further, in the absence of evidence, to say that the injured was permanently employed in a Tamil Journal, has erred in fixing the salary at Rs.9,000/-p.m and also draw my attention to Ex.P10- Letter showing the salary of the injured, which is issued by the agent of the journal, wherein, he is working as Supervisor, said to have earning Rs.12,000/-. 4. The learned counsel for the claim petitioner/first respondent would make his submissions in support of the award passed by the Tribunal. 5. After perusing the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board and Ex.P4-Wound Certificate and as per the observations made by the Medical Board, claim Petitioner/injured is having Motor System Disability, who had suffered from 75% disability, however, the Tribunal has fixed the Disability at 80%, and the Tribunal appears to have fixed the functional disability at 90%. 6. After perusing the certificate issued by the Medical Board, in the case of neuro surgical disability, taking note of the observations made therein, I find that the claim petitioner has suffered with Motor System Disability at 75% and thus the functional disability is fixed at 75% instead of 90% as awarded by the Tribunal. Taking into consideration the nature of the Job and Ex.P10, I fixed the salary at Rs.8,000/-and is entilted for 40% future prospects and compensation awarded under other headings are kept in tact. Accordingly, the compensation is re-assessed at Rs.8,000/- x 40/100=Rs.3,200/-. Taking into consideration the nature of the Job and Ex.P10, I fixed the salary at Rs.8,000/-and is entilted for 40% future prospects and compensation awarded under other headings are kept in tact. Accordingly, the compensation is re-assessed at Rs.8,000/- x 40/100=Rs.3,200/-. Hence the future prospects is arrived at Rs.3,200/-.Therefore, the disability compensation is arrived at Rs.8000/- + Rs.3200 x 12 x 15 x75/100 = Rs.15,12,000/- and the other awards under the head of pain and suffering at Rs. 30,000/-, for extra nourishment at Rs.10,000/-, for attendant charges at Rs.15,000/-, for damage to clothe at Rs.2000/-, for transportation to the hospital at Rs.4000/- and for medical bills at 5,34,000/- are confirmed . 7. Accordingly, the compensation is reduced from Rs. 26,36,000/- to Rs.21,07,000/-. The rate of interest remains unchanged. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified award amount with accrued interest and costs, less the award amount already deposited, if any. On such deposit being made, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified award amount with accrued interest and costs, less the award amount, if any already withdrawn. The Tribunal is directed to refund the excess award amount, if any, with accrued interest to the appellant/Insurance Company. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 8. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.