Judgment :- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Transport Corporation against the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2003 made in M.C.O.P.No.276 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Court) Krishnagiri. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- On 03.09.2001 at about 8.30p.m. the injured Krishnan was returning in his two wheeler bearing Registration No. TN-29-V-5080 in the Madras to Krishnagiri Road after attending his friends reception. When he was proceeding near a hotel in the left side of the road, a bus bearing Registration No.AP-10-Z-7912 belonging to the Andhra Pradesh State Transport Corporation, the appellant, came from the same direction at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler. Due to the accident, the vehicle was damaged and the injured Krishnan sustained injuries on his left hand, right hand, right leg, right fore arm and fracture on the right fore arm. He was taken to the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri and later taken to a Private Hospital at Bangalore. Since the injured was in a coma state, the claim petition was filed through the son of the injured, Vijaya Krishnan. They claimed a sum of Rs.1,38,55,000/-but restricted the claim to Rs.30,00,000/-before the Tribunal. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (1)Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver of the appellant / Transport Corporation or not? (2)Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation or not? If so, what is the amount payable and from whom? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and awarded a compensation of Rs.10,74,884/-with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the order, the Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 3.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Transport Corporation submitted that the Tribunal is wrong in holding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding excessive compensation without any basis and justification. It is therefore submitted that the order of the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same should be set aside. 4. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding excessive compensation without any basis and justification. It is therefore submitted that the order of the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same should be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents / claimants submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence available on record and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. It is therefore submitted that the order passed of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same should be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel. On behalf of the claimants, witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 were marked. On behalf of the Transport Corporation, one Sekar, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked. P.W.1 is one Vijaya Krishnan, who is the son of the injured/first appellant. P.W.2 is Dr.Ashok Kumar and P.W.3 is one Manokaran who is the eye witness to the accident. Ex.P1 is the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the Wound Certificate. Exs.P3 & P4 are the Discharge Summaries. Ex.P5 is the Driving Licence. Exs.P6 to P9 are the Income Tax Acknowledgments(Saral Forms). Medical receipts are marked as Ex.P10. Ex.P11 is the R.C. Book. Ex.P12 is the Discharge Certificate. Ex.P13 is the Advocate Commissioners Report. P.W.1, Vijaya Krishnan, the son of the injured, has given oral evidence that his father was running Krishna Automobile Shop selling automobile spare parts. After the accident, his father was admitted originally in the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri and then in a private hospital at Bangalore and finally at Manipal. P.W.3-Manokaran is an Electrician and he was a passenger in the said bus belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation and he is also an eye-witness to the accident. In his evidence, it was stated that, on the date of accident, while he was going to the temple by cart, he saw the bus belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation coming in a very rash and negligent manner and dashed against the injured / first appellant. Ex.P1 is the First Information Report. Even as per Ex.P1, it is clear that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation. Ex.P1 is the First Information Report. Even as per Ex.P1, it is clear that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation. After considering these oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The finding given by the Tribunal is based on valid materials and evidence. It is therefore confirmed. 6. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.10,74,884/-along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:- Loss of comfort, permanent disability, loss of future earning and grievous injuries - Rs.8,42,400/- Extra nourishment - Rs. 10,000/- Medical expenses - Rs.1,97,484/- Transport expenses - Rs. 25,000/- - Rs.10,74,884/- ============ The injured / first appellant was running an Automobile Shop selling automobile spare parts. The claimants claimed that the injured was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and relied on Exs.P6 to 9-Saral forms. But no proper materials or evidence produced to show that the injured was actually earning Rs.15,000/-per month. Hence the Tribunal was of the view that the injured would have earned an amount of Rs.72,000/-per annum from the said business. It was stated that the age of the injured was 50 years at the time of accident. In Ex.P2-Wound Certificate, the age of the injured is mentioned as 50 years. Hence the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 13 and arrived at an amount of Rs.9,36,000/- (Rs.72,000/- x 13). Thereafter taking into consideration the disability of the injured at 90%, the Tribunal awarded a consolidated sum of Rs.8,42,400/-(90% of Rs.9,36,000/-) towards loss of comfort, permanent disability, loss of future earning and grievous injuries. Due to the accident, the injured sustained the following injuries:- (i)Injuries upon left hand (ii)Injuries upon right hand (iii)Injuries upon right leg (iv)Injuries upon right forearm (v)Fracture in right arm P.W.2, the Doctor has issued the Wound Certificate, which is Ex.P2. After considering the oral evidence of P.W.1-Vijaya Krishnan, the son of the injured/first appellant, P.W.2-Dr.Ashok Kumar and P.W.3-Manokaran, eye witness to the accident, and also the report of Advocate Commissioner, which is Ex.P13, the Tribunal was of the view that there is a disability of 90%, which is based on valid materials and evidence. It is therefore confirmed. After considering the oral evidence of P.W.1-Vijaya Krishnan, the son of the injured/first appellant, P.W.2-Dr.Ashok Kumar and P.W.3-Manokaran, eye witness to the accident, and also the report of Advocate Commissioner, which is Ex.P13, the Tribunal was of the view that there is a disability of 90%, which is based on valid materials and evidence. It is therefore confirmed. The Tribunal has correctly determined the annual income of the injured at Rs.72,000/-. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 13. Ex.P6, 7 and 8 are Saral Forms. PAN Card was also filed along with the Saral Forms, wherein the date of birth of the claimant is mentioned as 13.09.1949. Taking into consideration of the same, the Tribunal correctly fixed the age of the injured as 51 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal ought to have adopted the 11 multiplier instead of 13 multiplier. If 11 multiplier is adopted, and also the disability is taken as 90%, the consolidated amount towards loss of comfort, permanent disability, loss of future earning and grievous injuries works out to Rs.7,12,800/- as follows:- Rs.72,000/- x 11 = Rs.7,92,000/- 90% of Rs.7,92,000/- = Rs.7,12,800/- Hence the consolidated amount awarded towards loss of comforts, permanent disability, loss of future earning and grievous injuries is modified from 8,42,400/- to Rs.7,12,800/-. The Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards pain and suffering. After taking into consideration the nature of injuries stated above and also the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.50,000/-towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards extra nourishment. After taking into consideration the treatment undergone by the injured, I feel that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards extra nourishment is reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.1,97,484/- towards medical expenses. Medical receipts are marked as Ex.P10. Relying on Ex.P10, the Tribunal has correctly awarded Rs.1,97,484/- towards medical expenses. It is an actual expenditure and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-towards transport charges. It is seen that the injured had taken treatment in a private hospital at Bangalore and also at Manipal. Hence I feel that the amount awarded towards transport expenses is reasonable and hence it is confirmed. It is an actual expenditure and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-towards transport charges. It is seen that the injured had taken treatment in a private hospital at Bangalore and also at Manipal. Hence I feel that the amount awarded towards transport expenses is reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation are as under:- Loss of comfort, permanent disability, loss of future earning and grievous injuries - Rs.7,12,800/- Pain and suffering - Rs. 50,000/- Extra nourishment - Rs. 10,000/- Medical expenses - Rs.1,97,484/- Transport to hospital - Rs. 25,000/- -Rs.9,95,284/- ============ (Rounded off to Rs.9,95,300/-) Therefore the claimants are entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.9,95,300/-as against the compensation of Rs.10,74,884/-awarded by the Tribunal. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is excessive. After taking into consideration the fall of interest rate over the years, I feel that it would be appropriate and reasonable to reduce the interest rate to 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. 7. Subsequently, the injured / first appellant, who was in a coma state, died on 012. 2004 and hence C.M.P. No.1242 of 2007 was filed to bring the legal heirs of the deceased on record and this Court, by order dated 24.04.2007 allowed the same. Accordingly, respondents 3 to 6 herein are brought on record as the legal heirs of the deceased. They are the wife, daughter, son and mother of the deceased. 8. It is stated that the appellant / Transport Corporation had already deposited 25% of the award amount as per the order of this Court dated 110. 2004 in CMP.No.12983 of 2004. Therefore, the appellant / Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the sum of Rs.9,95,300/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In C.M.P. No.1242 of 2007, which was filed for bringing the legal heirs of the deceased on record, it is seen that Keerthikrishnan, the fifth respondent herein, is a minor and all other legal heirs are major claimants. Hence, on deposit of the above said amount, the major claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective share from the deposit. In C.M.P. No.1242 of 2007, which was filed for bringing the legal heirs of the deceased on record, it is seen that Keerthikrishnan, the fifth respondent herein, is a minor and all other legal heirs are major claimants. Hence, on deposit of the above said amount, the major claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective share from the deposit. The share of the minor / fifth respondent, shall be invested in any Nationalised Bank proximate to the place of the resident of the minors guardian, the third respondent herein, for a period of three years and renewable thereafter till the minor attains majority. The guardian of the minor is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months. 9. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above modification. Consequently, C.M.P. Nos.12983 of 2004 and 1977 of 2007 are closed. No costs.