Judgment :- (Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2005 made in MCOP.No.1804 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) (Fast track court No.IV) Coimbatore at Tiruppur.) Aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.IV, Coimbatore at Tiruppur dated 23.11.2005 made in MCOP.No.1804 of 2002, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Coimbatore, has filed this appeal. 2. In respect of grievous injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 21.12.2001, the respondent herein/injured-claimant, prayed for a compensation of sum of Rs.5 lakhs. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, passed an award for Rs.1,49,370/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. Questioning the same, Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 3. Even at the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly states that they are aggrieved only with regard to quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal, it is unnecessary for this Court to go into that aspect. 4. It is the evidence of PW.1, injured-claimant that at the time of accident he was aged about 38 years and employed as Machine Operator in a Private Knitting Company. He also deposed that due to the accident he sustained fracture in his head and shoulder and also sustained injury on the left ear. Ex.P.2 is wound certificate. Ex.P.3 is discharge summary, which shows that he had a treatment at C.M.C. Hospital from 22.12.2001 to 31.12.2001 as in-patient. In view of head injury and the advice of the Doctors, C.T. Scan was taken, which shows fracture of parietal bone. Ex.P.4. is scan report in respect of fracture in the head. 5. The Doctor, who assessed the disability of the injured-claimant was examined as PW.2. On verification of the wound certificate, discharge summary, scan report, etc., and after examining the injured claimant, he assessed the disability to of 39%. The disability certificate has been marked as Ex.P.6; X-ray Ex.P.7, C.T. Scan Ex.P.8. PW.2, on verification of all the above documents, deposed before the Court that because of the head injury, he noticed swelling on the left side of his face and he lost his sensation on the left shoulder and left hand. The disability certificate has been marked as Ex.P.6; X-ray Ex.P.7, C.T. Scan Ex.P.8. PW.2, on verification of all the above documents, deposed before the Court that because of the head injury, he noticed swelling on the left side of his face and he lost his sensation on the left shoulder and left hand. He further deposed that movement of the left shoulder has been restricted and the injured cannot lift heavy articles by using his left hand. The doctor, PW.2, based on the relevant acceptable materials, assessed his disability to the extent of 39%. When such is the position, it is not clear how the Tribunal came to a conclusion that his disability would be only 35%. No doubt, the Tribunal, has applied multiplier method in arriving compensation. I am not in agreement with the procedure followed by the Tribunal. However, taking note of the nature of injuries, namely, fracture in the head and the consequential effect on his face, left shoulder, left hand, restriction in movement of left shoulder, etc., as well as of the fact that he had a treatment at CMC Hospital from 22.12.2001 to 31.12.2001, as in-patient, I am of the view that the amount awarded by the Tribunal, viz., Rs.1,49,370/- cannot be said to be either excessive or unreasonable; on the other hand, the abundant oral and documentary evidence amply show that the injured-claimant had suffered lot due to the accident. In the absence to any other material, I do not find any valid ground for interference. Hence, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP., is also dismissed.