Judgment :- (Appeal against the judgment and award dated 22.03.1999 made in M.C.O.P.No.31 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the award and decree, dated 22.03.1999 made in M.C.O.P.No.31/95 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 14.09.1996, at about 7.30 p.m, when the respondent was proceeding in his bicycle on the Chennai-Bangalore Main Road, the bus bearing Registration No.TN 23 N 0489 belongs to the appellant transport corporation was driven in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Due to which the respondent / claimant sustained various injuries and fracture. The respondent / claimant subsequently filed the claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, seeking a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injury and permanent disability sustained by him. Before the Claims Tribunal, the appellant / respondent disputed the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, belongs to the appellant. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, held that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus, by its driver. Admittedly, after the accident, a criminal case was registered against the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN.23 N 0489, belongs to the appellant. A perusal of the copy of the First Information Report, Ex.A1, would also probablise the case of the respondent / claimant, apart from the oral evidence adduced by the respondent / claimant. There is no contra evidence, except the oral evidence adduced by D.W.1, the conductor of the bus. Therefore, as found by the Tribunal, I am of the considered view that it has been proved that the motor accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus, belongs to the appellant. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would further contend that the award of compensation is exorbitant, since the Doctor, P.W.2 has stated that the percentage of disability was 35%. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would further contend that the award of compensation is exorbitant, since the Doctor, P.W.2 has stated that the percentage of disability was 35%. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal could not have awarded Rs.25,000/- for the permanent disability of 35% and also Rs.25,000/- towards loss of earning power, for which he cited the decision reported in 2006 (1) CTC 81 (Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., v. Hariprasad). 4. The Full Bench of this Court in Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd., v. Ahmed Thambi reported in 2006 (4) CTC 433 , has held as follows : “19. In order to avoid any future confusion and to bring more clarity and transparency in the award of damages, it is necessary that the Tribunal, while awarding damages, should itemise the award under each of the head namely, pecuniary losses and non-pecuniary losses. In the non-pecuniary losses the Tribunal shall consider : (a) pain and suffering, (b) loss of amenity, (c) loss of expectation of life, hardship, mental stress, etc. (d) loss of prospect of marriage and under the head pecuniary losses, the Tribunal shall consider loss of earning capacity and loss of future earnings as one component apart from medical and other expenses and loss of earning, if any from the date of accident till the date of trial. When loss of earning capacity is compensated as also the non-pecuniary losses under (a) to (d), permanent disability need not be separately itemised. The reference is answered according. C.M.A. No.231/94 be placed before the single Judge for final disposal in the light of our answer to the reference.” 5. As per the Full Bench decision, this court has to consider pecuniary losses and non-pecuniary losses sustained by the victim of motor accident. In this case, for loss of income, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,500/- as compensation and for loss of the cycle, by which the respondent / claimant was proceeding during the accident, a sum of Rs.1,000/- was awarded as compensation. The claims Tribunal has awarded for Nutritious Food, Rs.3,500/-, for pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards 35% of permanent disability and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of earning power and totally a sum of Rs.70,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal as compensation. 6. The claims Tribunal has awarded for Nutritious Food, Rs.3,500/-, for pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards 35% of permanent disability and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of earning power and totally a sum of Rs.70,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal as compensation. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited the decision reported in 2005 (1) CTC 28 (United India Insurance Company Ltd., v. Veluchamy), wherein this Court has held that the multiplier method cannot be adopted when the person has not completely lost his job or avocation and has to be idle for the rest of his life. But, herein this case, the multiplier method has not been applied and hence the decision referred to above is not applicable for this case. 7. As per the decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court reported in 2006 (1) CTC 81 (Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., v. Hariprasad), compensation for permanent disability and loss or earning power cannot be awarded in different heads. But, here in this case, the Tribunal has awarded for 35% of permanent disability, Rs.25,000/- and for loss of earning power, Rs.25,000/- and totally a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The respondent / claimant has produced Discharge Summary obtained from the Government Hospital, which was marked as Ex.P2, wherein the fracture sustained by the respondent / claimant has been specifically stated and he was in-patient in the Government Hospital for 20 days, as per the Discharge Summary, Ex.P.2. As per the evidence of the doctor, P.W.2, the respondent / claimant has sustained 35% of permanent disability and on the basis of the available evidence, the claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.50,000/- towards permanent disability and for partial loss of earning power, which cannot be considered as exorbitant. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the Full Bench decision, reported in 2006 (4) CTC 433 , I could see no error or illegality in the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and hence the award passed by the Tribunal has to be confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, confirming the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.