JUDGMENT : Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2021 made in MCOP No. 309 of 2017 on the file of the MACT/Special Subordinate Court at Erode. 1. The claim petitioner filed C.M.A.No.2209 of 2021 seeking enhancement of compensation. While the Insurance Company filed C.M.A.No.2379 of 2021 challenging the award on the point of quantum and negligence. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in C.M.A.No.2209 of 2021 and as per their ranking in trial Court. 3. The factum of accident, manner of accident, involvement of the vehicle belonging to the respondent are not in dispute. Accordingly, the findings rendered by the Trial Court with regard to negligence is hereby confirmed. 4. On the point of quantum of negligence, heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 5. In the counter statement filed before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company had challenged the negligence on the part of the injured. In this connection, the claim petitioner has examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1, P2, P5 and P6 policy certificate and Ex.P11 Rough Sketch and Ex.P12 Charge Sheet and Ex.P13 Observation Mahazar and also examined P.W.2-Doctor and also P.W.3 and P.W.4. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced before the trial Court. 6. After perusing the evidence of the injured P.W.1 along with Ex.P1 F.I.R, Ex.P2 Accident Register, Ex.P5 Motor Vehicle Report and Ex.P11 Rough Sketch and Ex.P12-Charge Sheet, Ex.P13 Observation Mahazar, I find that the Tribunal has came to the conclusion that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the offending car bearing Registration No.TN 34 N 4141. 7. It remains to be stated that the owner of the car has remained ex-parte and the Insurance Company has not taken any steps to examine the driver of the offending car assumes significance. 8. 7. It remains to be stated that the owner of the car has remained ex-parte and the Insurance Company has not taken any steps to examine the driver of the offending car assumes significance. 8. It is a specific evidence of P.W.1 wife of the claim petitioner that while the claim petitioner was standing at the left side of the Tiruchengode to Erode Main Road, driver of the offending vehicle having Registration No.TN 34 L 4141 drove the car in the same direction in a rash and negligent manner in East to West direction and dashed against the petitioner and caused injury. It is also stated that due to the injuries, he became immobile. 9. In view of the oral evidence of P.W.1 computed with the documentary evidence filed by the petitioner and in the absence of any contra evidence being let in by the Insurance Company, this Court finds that the finding rendered by the Tribunal in this regard does not warrant interference and the Tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion that the negligence is on the part of the driver of the insured car and hence the contention raised by the Insurance Company counsel stands negatived. 10. On the point of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal after taking note of the various deformities found in the certificate and also the statement of P.W.1 that after the accident her husband has begotten vegetative state and lying in bed at home. P.W.2 is the Doctor who had issued Ex.P6 discharge summary. 11. The Medical Board has assessed the disability as follows:- (a) Severe obstructive liag disease - LLL fibrotic change cognitive impainment mild balance impainment 72% seventy two only (b) From Ex.P3 Discharge summary this Court finds that he was admitted in emergency and intubated and ventilated because of low GCS and subcutaneous emphysema due to thoracic injury. CT scan Brain revealed Right high parietal SAH. Bilateral medical parietal haemorrhagic contusion, Diffuse cerebral oedema and multiple bilateral small haemorrhgatic contusion, X-ray Chest and Knee shows above findings. The nature of the disease, its prognosis, treatment options, its pros and cons were explained in detail to patient relatives. He was started on cerebral decongestants. Tracheostomy on 12.03.16. Pulmonoligst opinion obtained. Conservative management to head injury. Patient slowly weaned off from ventilator and extubated on 23.03.16. He was shifted to ward. Tracheostomy decannulation done on 25.04.16. The nature of the disease, its prognosis, treatment options, its pros and cons were explained in detail to patient relatives. He was started on cerebral decongestants. Tracheostomy on 12.03.16. Pulmonoligst opinion obtained. Conservative management to head injury. Patient slowly weaned off from ventilator and extubated on 23.03.16. He was shifted to ward. Tracheostomy decannulation done on 25.04.16. He recovered well and was discharged on 06.05.16 with advice to continue medication regularly and to come for follow-up. 12. Therefore, the Tribunal has fixed the functional disability at 100% as he has become vegetative state and was unable to move around from the house as he was having severe obstructive to lungs disease and cognative imparnament and hence this Court is of considered view that the medical records produced by the claim petitioner has satisfied the ratio laid down in Rajkumar's case and multiplier method is adopted and hence Rs.9000x12x9x100%=Rs.9,72,000/- 13. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the medical expenses of Rs.6,50,000/- is exorbitant. In this connection Ex.P4 was marked through P.W.2 Doctor. As per Ex.P4 the claim petitioner has been entitled Rs.6,49,999.98/- for medical expenses 14. For the Pain and sufferings, this Court has perused the evidence of P.W.2 is as follows:- 15. Hence I find that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair. All the points raised by the Insurance Company as discussed supra stands negatived. The claim for enhancement of compensation is also stands negatived as the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and fair. 16. Accordingly, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are dismissed confirming the compensation awarded by the Tribunal dated 16.03.2021 made in MCOP No.309 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Judge), Erode. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.