Judgment :- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and decree made in MCOP No.1815 of 2001 dated 14.06.2004 on the file of the Additional District Judge and Special Judge for E.C. Act Cases, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salem. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- The first respondent / claimant was injured in a motor accident on 24.07.2001 at about 8.30 p.m. The injured claimant along with his friend one Murugan was proceeding in a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-27-P-1926 from Belur towards Salem. When the motorcycle was nearing Saint Marys School, Sarkar Nattamangalam, a Bajaj M80 bearing Registration No.TN-27-A-8842, driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction at an uncontrollable speed and dashed against the Hero Honda Motorcycle in which the claimant and his friend were travelling. Due to the accident, the claimant as well as the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries. The claimant a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-before the Tribunal. The Insurance Company resisted the claim. On the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- a) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of Bajaj M80 two-wheeler or not? b) Whether the claimant is entitled for any compensation or not? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the riders of both the two-wheelers and awarded awarded a compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the award, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal is wrong in holding that there is 50% contributory negligence. It is also submitted that the Tribunal ought to have held that it is only the rider of the Hero Honda motorcycle responsible for the accident and hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. It is also vehemently contended that the Tribunal has awarded excessive and exorbitant compensation without basis and justification and that therefore the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. It is also vehemently contended that the Tribunal has awarded excessive and exorbitant compensation without basis and justification and that therefore the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent / claimant submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is the pillion rider. P.W.3 is the Doctor. The following are the list of exhibits:- Ex.A1-True copy of F.I.R. Ex.A2-Wound Certificate Ex.A3-Discharge Summary Ex.A4-Driving Licence Ex.A5-True copy of Diploma Certificate of the claimant Ex.A6-Photos with negatives Ex.A7-Medical bills Ex.A8-C.T.Scan Report Ex.A9-Medical treatment prescriptions Ex.A10-X-ray series Ex.A11-Scan Report Ex.A12-Disability Certificate Ex.A13-X-ray After considering the above materials and evidence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- with 9% interest p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:- Rupees Loss of income 75,000/- Medical expenses 1,00,000/- Pain and suffering 15,000/- Total... 1,90,000/-============== P.W.1, the claimant, in his evidence, stated that on 24.07.2001 at about 9.00 p.m., he was proceeding from Belur to Salem along with his friend who is the pillion rider of the motorcycle. When the motorcycle reached near St.Marys School, a Bajaj M80 two-wheeler came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. P.W.2, the pillion rider, in his evidence, stated that it is only the Bajaj M80 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant and caused the accident. It was also stated that the rider of the said Bajaj M80 vehicle died. Ex.A1 is the F.I.R. As there is no contra evidence and also in view of the fact that the riders of both the two-wheelers sustained injuries, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of riders of both the two-wheelers. Ex.A1 is the F.I.R. As there is no contra evidence and also in view of the fact that the riders of both the two-wheelers sustained injuries, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of riders of both the two-wheelers. The finding of the Tribunal is based on valid materials and evidence and hence the same is confirmed. 6. The claimant was 29 years at the time of accident. He is the Sales and Service Engineer of computers and electronic items and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. He is also a Diploma Holder in Electronics and Communication. Due to the accident he sustained multiple injuries all over the body. The nature of injuries are:- a) Fracture of shaft of left femur. b) Fracture of shaft of left tibia. c) Fracture of zygomatic and other bleeding injuries. d) Fracture of last maxilla. e) Fracture of lateral wall of orbit. f) Reduction of 3 inches length in leg. g) Disfiguration on the face. Ex.A2 is the Wound Certificate. Ex.A3 is the Discharge Summary wherein it is stated that he was admitted in the hospital on 24.07.2001 and discharged on 31.07.2001. Ex.A4 is the Driving Licence. Ex.A5 is the Educational Certificate, which shows that he has completed his Electronics and Communication Engineering in the year 1995. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal fixed the loss of monthly income of the claimant at Rs.2,000/-and calculated the annual loss of income at Rs.24,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 12). After considering the age of the claimant, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 15 and arrived at an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs.24,000/-x 15). From that amount, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd and arrived at Rs.2,40,000/-. Out of Rs.2,40,000/-, the Tribunal deducted 50% towards contributory negligence and determined the loss of income at Rs.1,20,000/- (50% of Rs.2,40,000/-). Even though the Tribunal arrived at Rs.1,20,000/-, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.75,000/-towards loss of income. Even though there is no specific reason to reduce the amount, the claimant has not preferred any appeal against the same and this appeal is preferred only by the Insurance Company. Even though the Tribunal arrived at Rs.1,20,000/-, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.75,000/-towards loss of income. Even though there is no specific reason to reduce the amount, the claimant has not preferred any appeal against the same and this appeal is preferred only by the Insurance Company. In view of the same and also taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, fixing monthly and annual loss of income, fixing the multiplier of 15 and reduction of 50% towards contributory negligence are reasonable and hence the amount awarded towards loss of income at Rs.75,000/-is confirmed. Further the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Medical bills are marked as Ex.A7. Relying on Ex.A7, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. It is an actual expenditure and hence the same is confirmed. Further the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards pain and suffering. After taking into consideration the nature of injuries as stated above and also Ex.A2-Wound Certificate, Ex.A10-X-ray series, Ex.A11-Scan Report, Ex.A12-Disability Certificate and Ex.A13-X-ray, I feel that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering at Rs.15,000/-is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. 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. Therefore the claimant is entitled to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,90,000/-but the interest rate is alone modified to 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. 7. If the entire award amount is not deposited by the appellant / Insurance Company till today, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit Rs.1,90,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount if any, already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. 8. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above modification. Consequently, M.P.No.2 of 2007 is closed. No costs.