Judgment :- Aggrieved against the award of compensation of Rs.1,16,000/- with interest at 9% p.a., the Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal. .2. On 26.08.1997 – 4.30 p.m., after finishing his vegetable vending business in the market, when the respondent was travelling in the bus bearing registration no.TN 31 N 0266, conductor of the bus had blown the whistle to start and the driver had abruptly started the vehicle due to which, the first Respondent had fallen down and sustained grievous injuries all over his body. The first Respondent sustained fracture on the left ankle, left knee, reverse fracture and suffered dislocation, inspite of treatment. Alleging that he has suffered permanent disability and that he is not able to carry on his vegetable vending business, respondent has filed claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 3. The appellant Corporation has resisted the claim Petition contending that when the bus driver was driving the bus slowly to park in Cuddalore bus stand, the respondent tried to get into the moving bus and had fallen down and sustained injuries. It was further contended that since the driver is not responsible for the accident, the appellant Corporation is not liable to pay the compensation. 4. To substantiate the claim before the Tribunal, claimant marked Ex.P-1 to P-8 were marked. The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and Doctor as PW-2. Driver and the Conductor of the bus were examined as RW-1 and RW-2. In consideration of oral evidence and materials on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The Tribunal disbelieved the version of the Corporation that the respondent tried to board into the moving bus and had fallen down. The Tribunal fixed permanent disability at 25% and fixing the income at Rs.2,000/- p.m., the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.96,000/- towards permanent disability and another Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering and medical expenses. 5. Challenging the impugned award, learned Counsel for the appellant Corporation has contended that the Tribunal erred in relying upon the evidence of PW-1 claimant. It was further submitted that monthly income of the claimant fixed at Rs.2,000/- is excessive and the total compensation of Rs.1,16,000/- is excessive and is to be reduced. 6. 5. Challenging the impugned award, learned Counsel for the appellant Corporation has contended that the Tribunal erred in relying upon the evidence of PW-1 claimant. It was further submitted that monthly income of the claimant fixed at Rs.2,000/- is excessive and the total compensation of Rs.1,16,000/- is excessive and is to be reduced. 6. Reiterating the findings of the award, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that since the respondent Tribunal, taking note of the fact that the respondent is a vegetable vendor, has rightly adopted the multiplier method and awarded compensation, it cannot be interfered with. .7. Claimant/PW-1 has spoken about the occurrence as to how he was travelling in the bus and due to blowing of whistle and sudden starting of bus, he had fallen down and sustained fracture injuries. For rash and negligent driving, the bus driver was charge-sheeted. Version of PW-1 is strengthened by the recitals in the FIR and the charge-sheet. 8. The driver and conductor who were examined as R.W.s 1 and 2 have stated that the respondent claimant attempted to get into the moving bus at the time of heavy rush and had fallen down and sustained injuries and the 1st respondent is solely responsible for the accident. Interested testimony of R.W.s 1 and 2 is not supported by any evidence. In consideration of evidence, when Tribunal has recorded a factual finding that accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, there is no reason to take a different view. 9. The next question to be considered is the quantum of compensation. There is no dispute that due to the accident, the respondent has sustained fracture injuries in his rightly knee and left ankle. PW-2 Doctor who has examined the claimant has stated that the claimant has suffered Tibia bone fracture injury in his left ankle and he had suffered fracture in the right knee – femur bone. Ex.P-8 is the Wound Certificate wherein PW-2 Doctor has assessed the percentage of disability at 50%. PW-2 has stated that the movement of the legs is very much restricted and the respondent would not be in a position to ride cycle or climb stair case or board bus. Though Doctor has fixed the percentage of disability at 50%, the Tribunal has reduced the percentage of disability to 25%. 10. PW-2 has stated that the movement of the legs is very much restricted and the respondent would not be in a position to ride cycle or climb stair case or board bus. Though Doctor has fixed the percentage of disability at 50%, the Tribunal has reduced the percentage of disability to 25%. 10. The respondent claimant was a vegetable vendor and the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income at Rs.2,000/- p.m. Since the respondent is a vegetable vendor, aged about 35 years, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier method for calculating the compensation amount. Fracture in the right knee tibia and bone fracture in the left leg would be a great handicap in the normal avocation of the respondent. On the evidence of P.W.s 1 and 2, and having regard to the nature of avocation of claimant, the Tribunal has rightly adopted the multiplier method, adopting the multiplier of 16. Reasonable amount of Rs.20,000/- was awarded towards medical expenses and pain and suffering. 11. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal Sub Court), Cuddalore awarding compensation of Rs.1,16,000/- is confirmed. The award amount is payable with interest at 9% from the date of Petition till the date of deposit and the CMA is ordered accordingly. The respondent claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount. No costs.