Judgment :- (Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 21.7.2004 in M.C.O.P.No.1110 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V), Coimbatore.) S.R.Singharavelu, J. The New India Assurance Company, who is the second Respondent in M.C.O.P.No.1110 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V), Coimbatore at Tiruppur is the appellant herein. 2. The first Respondent herein viz., Prabhuram, who is the claimant before the Court below has filed the above M.C.O.P. on the ground that on 30.9.2000 at about 18.30 hours while he was driving his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-37 -U-1972 from West to East on the left side of the main road leading to Coimbatore to Palladam near Airforce, in front of Nellai Stores, the Motor Van bearing Registration No.TN-37-B-9329 driven by the second Respondent herein from East to West in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner and thereby caused grievous injuries to the first Respondent herein. According to the Claimant/first Respondent, he was immediately admitted in Ganga Hospital and he had to incur huge amount towards medical expenses. The Claimant/first Respondent was employed in M/s.Vic Tos Dyeing, Tirupur as a Production Officer and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, the Claimant/first Respondent sustained permanent disability, thereby his earning capacity was reduced and he also sustained loss of income. As the petitioner is the sole bread winner of the family, he sought for compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs. 3. The first Respondent did not appear and contest the claim. The second respondent in its counter denied all the allegations levelled by the petitioner and stated that only due to the careless driving of the Motor Cycle without following the traffic rules, he sustained the injuries. The petitioner has to disclose the names of the owner, driver and insurer of the Motor Cycle. Without impleading them, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, no witness was examined and no document was marked. Without impleading them, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, no witness was examined and no document was marked. The Tribunal after holding that in view of the decision reported in 2002 ACJ 1259 , the second Respondent’s contention that the owner and Insurer of the two wheeler ought to have been impleaded has to be rejected, held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Motor Van. Taking into consideration his age as 25 years and his monthly income of Rs.4000/-, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 17 and fixed the compensation as Rs.3,26,4000/- towards his loss of income, Rs.40,000/- towards his 40% permanent disability, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.2,000/- towards nutritious food and Rs.36,069/- towards medical expenses and in all, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation at Rs.4,09,469/- payable jointly and severally by respondents 1 and 2 together with interest at 9% per annum . Against the said award, this appeal has been preferred. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the first Respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Court below has erred in awarding a sum of Rs.3,26,400/- towards loss of earning power, in the absence of any certificate pertaining to the loss of earning power issued by any expert . Even though a certificate of disability to the extent of 40% was issued, awarding an amount of Rs.3,26,400/- under the head of loss of earning is illegal. The Court below went wrong in fixing the age of the first respondent as 25 years at the time of accident based on the evidence of P.W.1 and also based on Ex.P2 Wound Certificate which may not be a conclusive proof of the age in the absence of any birth certificate issued by the concerned Municipal Authorities and hence the multiplier of 17 adopted by the Court below is illegal. 7. 7. The accident has taken place at 6.30 P.M. on 30.9.2000 near the Airport on the main road leading to Coimbatore to Palladam, by way of collision between the Van bearing Registration No. TN-37-B-9329 and the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN-37-U-1972 in which the first Respondent, rider of the Motor Cycle sustained grievous injuries which are as follows: 1. Colle’s Fracture ® Wrist 2. Comminuted Fracture Lower End (L) Radius 3. Bicondylar Fracture ® Tibia-type II Compound 4. Avulsion Fracture Adductor Tubercle (L) Femur with MCL Injury 5. Medial Collateral Ligament Sprain (L) Ankle 6. Lacerated wound over Forehead and Knee ® procedure(s) The X-Ray report showed the following Fractures: 1. ® Wrist: Fracture Lower End Radius with Displacement 2. (L) Wrist : Comminuted Fracture Lower End Radius 3. ® Knee : Undisplaced BC Condylar Fracture ® Tibia 4. (L) Knee: Avulsion Fracture Adductor Tubercle of Femur. 8. Regarding the incident, no witness has been examined on the side of the appellant herein. The petitioner besides examining himself and the physician as P.Ws.1 and 3 respectively had also examined one Sakthi Palanivel as P.W.2. The copy of FIR was marked as Ex.P1. The discharge summary and the disability certificate were respectively marked as Exs. P3 and P5 along with X-Ray marked as Ex.P6. The Wound Certificate and the Bill for medical expenses were marked as Exs .P2 and .P4. 9. By evaluating the oral and documentary evidence the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the Van driver was negligent in causing the accident and rightly fixed the liability upon the appellant, the Insurer. 10. Similarly, by virtue of the evidence on record the partial disability of the petitioner was fixed at 40%. It was supported by medical evidence of oral and documentary in nature and so the same can be accepted. 11. The injured was a Production Officer employed in a dyeing institute at Tirupur. This was fortified by the contents made in the F.I.R. and also the evidence of P.W.2. No suggestion was put to P.W.1 as if he was not in such job, nor was there any suggestion that his salary was not Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly accepted the contention of P.W.1 that he was doing the above mentioned job carrying monthly salary of Rs.5,000/- at the time of accident. 12. No suggestion was put to P.W.1 as if he was not in such job, nor was there any suggestion that his salary was not Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly accepted the contention of P.W.1 that he was doing the above mentioned job carrying monthly salary of Rs.5,000/- at the time of accident. 12. According to the evidence of P.W.1 his age during the accident was 25, which was also fortified by the contents in the Wound Certificate. No contra evidence was let in by the appellant to show that the claimant’s age was different from what he has stated in his evidence. So, it is now idle on the part of the appellant to canvass about the non production of birth certificate. It is true that it is the burden of the claimant to substantiate the case about his age and that was prima facie done by his own oral evidence and as found in the Wound Certificate. Wound Certificate may not be the age certificate and it will only reflect the contention of the victim at the time of entering into hospital for treatment. His statement before the police and Medical Officer as found in the FIR and Wound Certificate was cogent and cannot be disbelieved. Therefore, the age of the claimant was rightly fixed as 25, the multiplier to which is found as 17. The maximum of the multiplier found in the second Schedule of the Act is 18 and the minimum is 5. Even if the age is 40, the multiplier will not be less than 16. If the age is between 25 and 30, the multiplier will be the larger, viz., 18. Thus, as per the evidence, the age of the claimant was fixed at 25 and correct multiplier of 17 is adopted. 13. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that for the cases of injury the multiplier is to be discarded. Even the case law cited on the side of the appellant reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2157 (New India Assurance Co., Ltd., v. Charlie and another) the multiplier theory was adopted even though the facts of that case involved the injured about 37 years old. Even the case law cited on the side of the appellant reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2157 (New India Assurance Co., Ltd., v. Charlie and another) the multiplier theory was adopted even though the facts of that case involved the injured about 37 years old. As against the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant no statutory deduction shall be made in case of injured, the observation made in that case was in favour of the Statutory deduction. 14. Further, in that case, it was observed as follows:- “Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis, and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master since there are so often many impounderables. In every case it is the overall picture that matters, and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered.” 15. Quoting the multiplier theory of Halsbur’s Laws of London, in the above cited case, the following was mentioned:- “… the lump sum award in respect of future loss must be discounted to reflect their receipt of interest on invested funds … so that they are compensated each year for their annual loss …” 16. These are all only the pointers serving as guide but can never be said to be invariable ready reckons, because so many imponderable contingencies do occur. It is an over all birds view method in and by which monetary substitution is endeavoured towards the loss of earning capacity of the injured or even if there is no loss of earnings, such monetary substitution for the perennial pain and suffering towards execution of the job for the sake of earning, may have to be done. 17. It is in this view of the matter, the loss of income was worked out as Rs.40,000/- x 12 x 17 x 40 100 = Rs.3,26,400/- Since the monthly salary was Rs.5,000/-, there shall be a 1/3 deduction. After doing which, the monthly income becomes Rs.3,334/- out of which 40% shall be the loss to be calculated by adopting the multiplier and to arrive at annually. So the right calculation would be Rs.3,334 x 12 x 17 x 40 100 = Rs. 2,72,054.40 18. Another sum of Rs.40,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal for the very same injury, which will not be accepted. 19. So the right calculation would be Rs.3,334 x 12 x 17 x 40 100 = Rs. 2,72,054.40 18. Another sum of Rs.40,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal for the very same injury, which will not be accepted. 19. The other items of Rs.2,000/- towards nutritious food and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and a sum of Rs.36,069/- towards medical expenses as supported by Ex.P4 are admissible. Thus, the total goes to Rs.3,15,123.40. Therefore, we are of the considered view to modify the award amount in to a sum of Rs.3,15,123.40 instead of a sum of Rs.4,09,469/- as awarded by the Tribunal below. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The fair and decretal order of the Tribunal below is set aside and the same is modified to the extent of awarding a sum of Rs.3,15,123.40 instead of a sum of Rs.4,09,469/-. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P. 18203 of 2005 is closed.