Judgment :- This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 011. 2006 made in MACTOP No.885 of 2001 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( II Additional Subordinate Judge in charge), Cuddalore 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as under:- On 29.05.2001 at about 7.20 p.m., the claimant and his wife Rani were proceeding in a bicycle from North to South. When they were nearing Gundu Salai Housing Board in front of Chinnakattidam, a lorry bearing registration No.TN-32-1359 driven by the driver of the second respondent came from South to North direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Cyclist. Due to the accident, the claimant and his wife were thrown out of the bicycle and the claimant sustained grievous injuries and fracture in his right foot and also injuries all over the body. Immediately, the claimant was taken to the Government Hospital, Cuddalore. The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- before the Tribunal. The appellant/Insurance Company resisted the claim. On pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- “a) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver or not? b) Whether the claimant is entitled for any compensation or not? If so, what is the amount and from whom?” After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,14,600/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the award, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has disputed only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and contended that the Tribunal has erred in adopting the multiplier method for the injuries sustained by the claimant. It is also submitted that the Tribunal had awarded excessive and exorbitant compensation, without basis and justification. Hence the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same should be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant has submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence available on record and came to the correct conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. 5. Heard the counsel. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant has submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence available on record and came to the correct conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, no witness was examined and no documents were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant himself. P.W.2 is Dr.R.Venugopal. Ex.P1 is the xerox copy of First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the Xerox copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report. Ex.P3 is the Xerox copy of the Registration Certificate. Ex.P4 is the Xerox copy of the Accident Register. Ex.P5 is the Xerox coy of the treatment Certificate. Ex.P6 is the Insurance Certificate. Ex.P7 is the Xerox copy of the Diving Licence. Ex.P8 is the Identification Card. Ex.P9 is the Wound Certificate. Ex.P10 is the X-ray. After considering the 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 driver of the lorry and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence and hence, the same is confirmed. 6. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,14,600/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. He details of the compensation are as under:- Rs. Loss of income 1,83,600/- Pain and suffering 20,000/- Extra nourishment 10,000/- Transport charges 1,000/- Total 2,14,600/-P.W.1 is the claimant himself. He is a Mason. He was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident. He was earning Rs.4,500/- as monthly income. Due to the accident, the claimant had suffered fracture on the right foot and multiple injuries all over the body and has taken treatment as in-patient for a period of 22 days in Government General Hospital, Cuddalore. The Doctor, who has examined the claimant, has given Ex.P9-disability certificate assessing 30% of permanent disability. Ex.P10 X-ray shows the fracture. PW2-Doctor has given evidence that there was a fracture in his right foot and due to that, there was shortening of foot and assessed the disability at 30%. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards disability. But it calculated the loss of earning capacity by adopting the multiplier method. Ex.P10 X-ray shows the fracture. PW2-Doctor has given evidence that there was a fracture in his right foot and due to that, there was shortening of foot and assessed the disability at 30%. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards disability. But it calculated the loss of earning capacity by adopting the multiplier method. The Tribunal, considering the oral and documentary evidence and Ex.P9-disability certificate to the extent of 30%, has fixed the monthly salary at Rs.3,000/-and taking into account 30% disability, arrived at the loss of income at Rs.900/- per month (3,000 x 30/100) and the annual income works out to Rs.10,800/- (900 x 12). Taking into consideration the age of the claimant was 35 years at the time of the accident, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 17 and determined the loss of income at Rs.1,83,600/-(10800 x 17). Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier method for calculating the loss of income. The Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration only the 30% disability for computing compensation as there is no special circumstances. Hence, it would be reasonable to fix Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability and the compensation would be Rs.60,000/-towards disability. The amount awarded for loss of income is not in accordance with law and the same is set aside. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration Ex.P4-Accident Register and Ex.P5-Treatment Certificate, has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-, which is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards extra nourishment, which I feel very excessive and it is appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- under that head. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1000/-towards transport charges. The claimant has taken treatment as inpatient for 22 days. Hence, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-under that head. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head loss of income during the treatment period. It is not in dispute that the claimant was taken treatment for 22 days as inpatient in the Government General Hospital, Cuddalore. Hence it would be appropriate and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of income. The details of the modified compensation are as under:- Rs. It is not in dispute that the claimant was taken treatment for 22 days as inpatient in the Government General Hospital, Cuddalore. Hence it would be appropriate and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of income. The details of the modified compensation are as under:- Rs. Permanent disability 60,000/- Pain and suffering 20,000/- Extra nourishment 5,000/- Transport charges 5,000/- Loss of income 10,000/- Total 1,00,000/- ========== Therefore the claimant is entitled to the total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as against the compensation of Rs.2,14,600/-awarded by the Tribunal. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition is reasonable and hence, the same is confirmed. 7. It is stated that the Insurance Company has already deposited Rs.1,25,000/-as per the order passed by this Court on 05.09.2007. The Insurance company is directed to deposit the modified amount as stated above within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after adjusting the amount already deposited. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with 7.5% interest p.a. from the date of petition, from the deposit, after adjusting the amount if any, already withdrawn. The Insurance Company is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount, if any, available in the deposit, on making proper application. 8. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above modification. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed. No costs.