Judgment :- Challenge in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is against the award dated 010. 2001 in MACTOP No.396 of 2000 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, viz., Additional Sub Judge, Cuddalore granting a total compensation of Rs.3,04,345/-along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of payment. 2. The respondent/claimant has filed the claim petition claiming a total compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the multiple injuries sustained resulting in permanent disability, pain and suffering etc. .3. The short facts of the claim are as below: .On 15.02.2000 at about 11.45 hrs., when the respondent/claimant was walking in the mud portion of the road from south to north on Vadalur to Panruti Main Road and opposite to fire wood shop at Vadalur, the first respondents motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-22-J-1137 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations, came from the opposite direction and dashed against the petitioner. As a result thereof, the claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries. The claimant was taken to Government Headquarters Hospital, Cuddalore where, after preliminary treatment she was referred to Krishna Hospital, Cuddalore. 4. The accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle driver. Hence, the respondents 1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the motor cycle are jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. 5. The appellant/second respondent filed a counter inter alia stating that the accident was due to either rash or negligent driving of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-22-J-1137 driven by the driver of the first respondent and since the accident happened solely due to the rash and negligent act of the respondent/claimant, due to sudden crossing of the road, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. .6. It is the further plea of the appellant/second respondent that it denies the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-22-J-1137 was insured with the appellant and that the driver had valid driving licence at the time of accident. 7. The Tribunal has examined two witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 on the side of the claimant and marked Exs.P.1 to 12 and on the side of respondent, no one was examined and no document was marked. 8. 7. The Tribunal has examined two witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 on the side of the claimant and marked Exs.P.1 to 12 and on the side of respondent, no one was examined and no document was marked. 8. After contest, the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and has awarded a sum of Rs.3,04,345/- in favour of the respondent/claimant together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till date of payment. The Tribunal has directed the appellant/second respondent Insurance Company to pay the same, granting two months time. The lawyers fee has been determined at Rs.9,086/-. 9. Aggrieved with the award passed by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as appellant. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant urges that the Tribunal has erred in awarding a disproportionate compensation without properly following the statutory provision and evidence and that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration of the fact that the claim petition was filed under Section 163A, but it was filed under Section 166 of the M.V.Act and the disability assessed by the Doctor also was not in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 1 of The Workmens Compensation Act and further that the Tribunal has erred in awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/-towards grievous injuries, which cannot be sustained under Section 163A of M.V.Act and in any event, the Tribunal should have taken the multiplicand at Rs.1,400/-per month after deducting 1/3rd and even if 16 years multiplier is applied, the award cannot exceed Rs.1,01,135/-representing 43% of partial disablement and hence prays for scaling down the amount arrived at by the Tribunal. 11. To prove the issue of negligence, the claimant has examined herself as P.W.1 before the Tribunal. 11. To prove the issue of negligence, the claimant has examined herself as P.W.1 before the Tribunal. P.W.1, the claimant in her evidence has deposed that at about 11.45 hrs in the morning, she was walking in the mud portion of the road on left side and at that time, near Vadalur fire wook shop, opposite to the said fire wood shop, Hero Honda motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-22-J-1137 came in the opposite direction at high speed and dashed against, as a result of which she sustained fractures in both the legs and she also sustained injuries on the chest and on hands and that she was admitted into the Cuddalore Government Hospital, where she remained as inpatient for 20 days and thereafter, she was admitted into the Cuddalore Krishna Hospital and that she took treatment under Dr.Nanda Kumar and that she remained as inpatient for 20 days in the said hospital and that she was operated upon and again, she was admitted into the Cuddalore Government Hospital and the very same Doctor gave treatment to her and thereafter, for 1-1/2 years till date, she was taking treatment. .12. Ex.P.1 is the xerox copy of the F.I.R. dated 15.02.2000. In this, the complainants name is mentioned as V.S.Mani. The accused name is given as driver of Hero Honda motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-22-J-1137. A cursory look of Ex.P.1-F.I.R. shows that a case under Section 279 and 338 I.P.C. has been registered by the Vadalur Police Station in Cuddalore District. In Ex.P.1 – F.I.R., it is inter alia stated that the claimant was walking in Panruti Main Road from south to north near the fire wood shop and at that time, Hero Honda motor cycle came from north to south in high speed without sounding horn and dashed against the claimant etc. It is also quite evident from the F.I.R. that the claimant has sustained fracture on her right front leg and injuries on her left front leg and left elbow, chest and that the driver of the motor cycle has ran away from the scene leaving the vehicle. Ex.P.2 is the M.V.Inspectors report dated 21.07.2000 wherein, it is specifically stated that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect of this vehicle. Ex.P.2 is the M.V.Inspectors report dated 21.07.2000 wherein, it is specifically stated that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect of this vehicle. Ex.P.3 is the fracture certificate dated 21.02.2000 in respect of the claimant wherein, it is stated that the injuries No.1 and 2 are grievous and that there is (1) swelling (R) leg c sutured wound c deformity (2) Swelling (L) leg. In Ex.P.3 fracture certificate it is mentioned that X-ray of the right leg shows # BB U/3 and the X-ray of left leg shows # tibia. Admittedly, the complainant V.S.Mani has not been examined as witness on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. However, the respondent/claimant has examined herself as P.W.1. Her evidence in regard to the manner and happening of the occurrence is natural, convincing, trustworthy and therefore, her evidence is accepted by this Court. In the instant case on hand, on the side of respondent there is no contra evidence to discredit the testimony of the claimant/P.W.1. Therefore, the evidence of the claimant/P.W.1 in regard to the happening of occurrence is unassailable. In that view of the matter, this Court holds that the accident took place because of the negligent driving of the motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-22-J-1137 by its driver and that the driver of the Hero Honda motor cycle is squarely responsible for causing the accident and the finding is rendered accordingly. 13. In regard to the question of quantum, the compensation to be awarded to the claimant, it is pertinent to point out that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,35,200/- towards permanent disability and other inconveniences, Rs.25,000/-towards grievous injuries, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards nourishment expenses and Rs.34,145/- towards medical expenses and in all, it has awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,04,345/- in favour of the respondent/claimant. 14. 14. P.W.1(the claimant) in her evidence has stated that in the petition she has mentioned that she was doing milk business and that she has not stated that she was keeping ten cows in regard to her milk business and that she got income from that business and that she was doing the milk business daily for Rs.3000/- and that she use to get an income of Rs.200/- daily, after deducting the expense of Rs.100/- and that she has sold her cows and took treatment and within six months from the date of accident her husband has died and that she has one female child and that since she could not do her milk business, she has sustained the loss of the income and that the medical bills is Ex.P.9 (series) amounting to Rs.34,145.59p and that Ex.P.8 are the prescriptions and that Ex.P.4 is the discharge summary and that Ex.P.5 is the discharge slip issued by the Cuddalore Krishna Hospital and that Ex.P.6 is the driving licence and Ex.P.7 is the policy. 15. P.W.2, the Doctor who issued the disability certificate-Ex.P.10 to the claimant, in his evidence has stated that the claimant has sustained two bone fractures in her right leg and in the left leg Tibia bone was broken and that she was admitted into the Cuddalore Hospital as inpatient for four times from 15.02.2000 to 010. 2000 and that she was surgically operated upon and that she took treatment at the Krishna Hospital at Cuddalore from 28.02.2000 to 16.03.2000 and that the claimant had fixed plates on her right leg fracture and for her left leg, the plaster of paris treatment was given and that the claimant is not able to sit across with her legs and that her movements on the right leg joints etc., has got reduced by 10 degrees and that her left leg movements also got reduced by 10 degrees and that she has slight limping walk and that the joints of right and left leg have got depreciation and that her right leg two bones inside has slightly mal-united and that the left Tibia bone has united inside in a bending fashion and that she has sustained a total permanent disability of 43% and that the permanent disability certificate given by him is Ex.P.10. In Ex.P.10 the disability certificate dated 03.09.2001 issued by the P.W.2 (Doctor) it is mentioned as follows: 1. In Ex.P.10 the disability certificate dated 03.09.2001 issued by the P.W.2 (Doctor) it is mentioned as follows: 1. Movements restricted 6% 2. Moderate pain 6% 3. Mild limping 3% 4. Stability loss 12% 5. Deformity changes (B) knee 10% 6. Deformity 6% In short, the P.W.2 Doctor has assessed the disability of the respondent/claimant at 43%. 16. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the respondent/claimant at Rs.2,100/-. After deducting 1/3rd of Rs.700/-towards personal expenses of the claimant, it has taken into account a sum of Rs.1,400/-towards loss of income per month. For a year the loss of income works out to Rs.16,800/- (Rs.1,400 x 12). 17. In the decision Binoti Patnaik vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others 2003 ACJ pg 508, it is observed that for the fracture of left tibia bone resulting in 40% permanent disability and injured uses crutches and the injured hospitalised for about two months on two occasions and underwent six operations in which skin grafting was undertaken and nailing was done etc., the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for disability, Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/-for special diet and the appellate Court has allowed Rs.2,00,000/- for disability, Rs.75,000/-for pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- for special diet, the award of Rs.1,40,000/-has been enhanced in appeal to Rs.2,85,000/- and 12% interest per annum from the date of application till date of payment has also been ordered. 17(a). In the decision Balram Lalwani vs. Jahidkhan and others 2001 ACJ pg 524, it is observed that for the crush injury on left arm and hand resulting in amputation of little finger and the injury, despite skin grafting suffering 60% permanent disability as his fingers do not bend and there was no possibility of improvement and the injured cannot hold or lift anything with his left hand and cannot drive vehicle any more etc., the Tribunal has granted Rs.40,000/- for permanent disability, Rs.27,461/- for treatment expenses and hospitalisation and the appellate Court has further allowed Rs.10,000/-towards medicines and special diet, Rs.25,000/-for loss of earning capacity, Rs.25,000/- for physical and mental pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- for transportation and Rs.2,000/- for engaging a servant, the award of Rs.67,461/-has been enhanced in appeal to Rs.1,39,461/-. 18. 18. In the decision Harvinder Singh vs. State of Haryana and others 2001 ACJ 1291 , it is observed that for a fracture of right tibia which resulted into permanent disability, despite hospitalisation for more than nine months in two different hospitals and undergoing operations at three places in the body and the injured was not able to pursue the ordinary pursuits of life etc., the Tribunal has awarded Rs.72,000/-and in appeal the same Rs.72,000/- has been enhanced to Rs.1,20,000/-. 19. In the decision Satish Mangharam Tanwani vs. Freight Handler and another 1996 ACJ 788, it is observed that for the compound fractures of Tibia and Fibula on left leg resulting in shortening of leg by 3/4th, the permanent disability of 15%, the Tribunal has granted Rs.11,587/- and the appellate Court has increased the award to Rs.60,000/-. 20. In the decision M. Padmanabha vs. Union of India and others 1999 ACJ 1355 , it is observed that for the compound fractures of left Tibia and Fibula resulting in shortening of leg by 1cm and the injured is limping and has to use high heeled shoe etc., the Tribunal has awarded Rs.33,500/-and the appellate Court has enhanced the award to Rs.78,000/-. 21. In the decision United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Beena, it is observed that for the extensive compound multiplier fracture of left leg and foot drop and the injured was hospitalised a number of times for several months and underwent many operations, when steel plates were fixed and subsequently removed etc., the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.83,000/- which has been enhanced in appeal to Rs.1,00,000/-. 22. In the decision P. Kalavathi vs. G.Murali and another 2003 ACJ 1298, it is observed that for the compound fracture of right Tibia, suffering a permanent disability 45%, the award of Rs.55,100/- has been increased to Rs.1,36,100/-together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 23. In the decision Pyarsingh vs. Kamlabai and others 2004 ACJ 902 , it is observed that for the compound and multiple fractures of both legs resulting in shortening of leg by 2cm, the permanent disability suffered 32.6%, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and the appellate Court has increased the same to Rs.2,50,000/-. 24. 23. In the decision Pyarsingh vs. Kamlabai and others 2004 ACJ 902 , it is observed that for the compound and multiple fractures of both legs resulting in shortening of leg by 2cm, the permanent disability suffered 32.6%, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and the appellate Court has increased the same to Rs.2,50,000/-. 24. In Subhash Gautam vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, ( 2004 ACJ 1097 ) it is observed that for the injury of compound fractures to both legs, injured suffering 50% permanent disability, the Tribunal determined the compensation at Rs.1,93,000/-, but the appellate Court has fixed the compensation at Rs.3,23,000/-. 25. In Ex.P.5, the discharge advice of Krishna Hospital, it is mentioned as follows: COMPOUND # BOTH BONE (R) LEG # TIBIA (L) LEG REDUCTION & EXTERNAL FIXATION (R) DONE 26. P.W.1/claimant in her evidence though she had stated that she was getting a daily income of Rs.200/- through milk business, after deducting a sum of Rs.100/-towards expenses, there is no documentary proof to that effect. However, the Tribunals are not to apply the strict rules of evidence. Therefore, one can safely conclude that through milk business, P.W.1 would have earned atleast a minimum of Rs.75/- daily and per month, the same works out to Rs.2,250/-(Rs.75 x 30 = 2,250). Thus the monthly dependency of Rs.2,250/- towards loss of income per year, it works out to Rs.27,000/-(Rs.2,250 x 12 = 27,000/-). In the claim petition, the claimant has mentioned her age as 37. However, in the preamble portion of her evidence, she has mentioned her age as 40 (on 31.08.2001). There is no documentary proof in regard to the actual age of the claimant in the instant case on hand. In this connection, the second Schedule to Section 163A of the M.V.Act refers to the multiplier as 16 for a victim above 35 years, but not exceeding 40 years of age. Therefore, this Court adopts a multiplier of 16 as fit and proper as far as the present case is concerned. Admittedly, the permanent disability of P.W.1/claimant is 43% as per Ex.P.10 and as per the evidence of Doctor P.W.2. Accordingly the compensation payable for the permanent disability works out as follows: Rs.2250 x 12 x 43 x 16 = Rs.1,85,760/- 100 27. Admittedly, the permanent disability of P.W.1/claimant is 43% as per Ex.P.10 and as per the evidence of Doctor P.W.2. Accordingly the compensation payable for the permanent disability works out as follows: Rs.2250 x 12 x 43 x 16 = Rs.1,85,760/- 100 27. Therefore, the aforesaid sum of Rs.1,85,760/-in the considered opinion of this Court is a fair, prudent, just and reasonable compensation for permanent disability. Likewise, for pain and suffering, this Court awards a sum of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of Rs.5,000/-and this Court awards a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards nourishment expenses. Apart from the above amounts, this Court grants a sum of Rs.34,135.89p towards medical expenses bills as per Ex.P.9. Thus the claimant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,34,895.89p as total compensation. Resultantly, this Court awards a sum of Rs.2,34,895.89p (Rupees two lakhs thirty four thousand eight hundred and ninty five and eighty nine paise only) as total compensation together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment for the disability suffered by the claimant, payable by the appellant/second respondent Insurance Company and this Court consequently comes to the inescapable conclusion that a sum of Rs.3,04,345/-fixed by the Tribunal astronomically is exorbitant on the facts and circumstances of the case, which floats on the surface. The lawyers fee is fixed at Rs.7,698/-. 28. Earlier in C.M.P.No.11404 of 2003, this Court has ordered interim stay on condition, the appellant deposits the entire amount of compensation with costs and interest upto date within a period of eight weeks less the amount, if any already deposited. Failing compliance, the order of interim stay will stand vacated automatically etc. Further on 12. 2003, this Court has made the stay as absolute in view of the compliance of the conditional order dated 04.08.2003. 29. It is open to the respective parties to work out their remedies in the manner known to law as per the observations made by this Court in this appeal. 30. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in above terms. The award dated 010. 2001 passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, viz., Additional Sub Judge, Cuddalore in MACTOP No.396 of 2000 is modified. Considering the facts and circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs in this appeal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.