Judgment :- The Transport Corporation which figured as the sole respondent before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Nagapattinam has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the judgment and award of the said Tribunal dated 19.06.2001 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.124 of 2000 on the file of the said Tribunal. 2. The respondent herein had filed the above said MACTOP on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Nagapattinam claiming a sum of Rs.2,35,000/- as compensation for the injuries allegedly sustained by him in an accident that took place at 5.15 a.m on 02.06.1999 at Boothamangalam bus stop. 3. In support of his claim the respondent herein had made the following averments in the claim petition:- On 02.06.1999 at about 5.15 a.m, while respondent herein (petitioner) was waiting for the bus at Boothamangalam bus stop, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-32 N-0323 belonging to the appellant transport corporation came there driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against and ran over the respondent herein (petitioner) as a result of which, the respondent herein (petitioner) sustained multiple grievous injuries including fracture of tibia and fibula on the left leg and an injury on the dorsal part part of right leg. Immediately after the accident, the respondent herein (petitioner) was taken to the Government hospital, Koothanallur and then transferred to the Government hospital, Mannargudi. From there he was again transferred to Raja Mirasudar Government hospital, Thanjavur, where he was treated as an in-patient. After getting treatment as an in-patient in the said hospital, the respondent herein/petitioner got himself discharged from the said hospital and admitted in a private hospital for better treatment. Regarding the said accident a case was registered on the file of Mannarguid Police station as Crime No.145/99 for offences under section 279 and 338 IPC. The driver of the above said bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation was at fault and it was purely due to the rash and negligent driving of the above said bus the accident took place. Therefore, the appellant transport corporation being the owner of the said bus should be directed to pay compensation to the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him and the consequences flowing from the same. Therefore, the appellant transport corporation being the owner of the said bus should be directed to pay compensation to the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him and the consequences flowing from the same. Though the respondent herein (petitioner) assessed the damages, that could be claimed by him, at Rs.2,35,000/-, restricting his claim to Rs.2,00,000/-only he had prayed for an award against the appellant transport corporation for the payment of the said amount together with interest from the date of petition and cost. 4. The claim was resisted by the appellant transport corporation by filing a counter statement denying the petition averments regarding the manner in which the accident took place, the alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the nature of injuries sustained and the nature of treatment taken by the respondent herein (petitioner). Besides the said denial of the petition averments, the following averments were also made by the appellant transport corporation in its counter statement: On 02.06.1999, the bus belonging to the appellant was proceeding from Thanjavur towards Mannargudi. At about 4.30 a.m when it reached Boothamangalam village and was proceeding slowly towards the bus stop, the respondent herein (petitioner), in an attempt to commit suicide, jumped in front of the bus pursuant to which he sustained injuries as the left side front wheel of the bus hit him. When he was questioned by the driver of the bus as to why he jumped in front of the bus all of a sudden, he informed the driver that he wanted to end his life as he was frustrated. The appellant transport corporation also reliably learnt that the respondent herein/petitioner was suffering from mental depression and even his wife was not willing to admit him in the hospital. The amount claimed by the respondent herein (petitioner) as compensation was highly excessive and exorbitant and hence the petition should be dismissed with cost. 5. Based on the above said pleadings, the Tribunal framed necessary issues and conducted trial. The respondent herein (petitioner) and the Medical Officer who issued a disability certificate were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked on the side of the respondent herein (petitioner). On the side of the appellant herein/respondent, the driver of the offending bus was examined as R.W.1 (the sole witness) and no document was marked on the side of the respondent. 6. On the side of the appellant herein/respondent, the driver of the offending bus was examined as R.W.1 (the sole witness) and no document was marked on the side of the respondent. 6. After hearing the arguments and upon considering the evidence in the light of the arguments advanced on either side, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation by its driver. Based on the disability certificate produced on the side of the respondent herein/petitioner, the Tribunal held that the respondent herein/petitioner sustained injuries which led to a permanent disability at 36% and awarded a total sum of Rs.1,07,200/-as compensation with the following split up particulars: Compensation for permanent disability : Rs. 97,200/- For Pain and Suffering : Rs. 5,000/- Loss of earning during treatment : Rs. 1,500/- Expenses on extra nourishment : Rs. 2,500/- Transportation Expenses : Rs. 1,000/- TOTAL Rs.1,07,200/- 7. Aggrieved by and challenging the award of the Tribunal dated 19.06.2001, the appellant transport corporation has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on various grounds set out in the memorandum of grounds of appeal. 8. The points that arise for consideration in the appeal are as follows: i) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation was responsible for the accident as he drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner is erroneous? ii) Whether the appellant transport corporation is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondent? iii) Whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive requiring downward revision? 9. This court heard the submissions made by Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr.R.Muralidharan, learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent and perused the materials available on record. 10. It is not in dispute that an accident took place at 5.15 a.m on 02.06.1999 at Boothamangalam bus stop and that the vehicle involved in the said accident was the bus bearing Registration No.TN-32 N-0323; that the appellant transport corporation was the owner of the said bus at the relevant point of time and that the respondent herein (petitioner) was hit by the said bus and sustained injuries in the above said accident. The respondent herein/petitioner had preferred the claim based on his contention that he was waiting for the bus at the bus stop and that while he was thus waiting, the above said bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation came there at a high speed, driven by its driver rashly and negligently and caused the accident by hitting him. It is the specific case of the respondent herein/petitioner that the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver was the sole cause of the accident. .11. On the other hand, the appellant transport corporation had taken a novel defence by contending that the respondent (injured) was suffering from mental depression and he, in an attempt to commit suicide, suddenly jumped in front of the bus and invited the accident. In the light of the said contentions, in order to prove his case that it was the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver which resulted in the accident, the respondent herein/petitioner, besides examining himself as P.W.1, produced a copy of the First Information Report prepared by the police for registering a case against the driver of the bus involved in the said accident. The said FIR copy has been marked as Ex.A1. It can be noticed from the contents of Ex.A1 that a case was registered against the driver of the bus involved in the accident for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 IPC in Crime No.145/1999 on the file of Koothanallur police station and that the said case was registered based on the statement of the respondent herein (petitioner). The respondent herein who deposed as P.W.1, in his evidence and in the statement before the police which formed the basis of the FIR, has clearly stated that while he was waiting at the bus stop, the bus came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. It was his clear assertion in his evidence as well as his statement before the police that the driver of the bus was at fault. He has also denied suggestion put to him that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and only due to his negligence the accident took place. It was his clear assertion in his evidence as well as his statement before the police that the driver of the bus was at fault. He has also denied suggestion put to him that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and only due to his negligence the accident took place. Though the appellant transport corporation had taken a stand to the effect that the respondent was suffering from mental depression and in an attempt to commit suicide, he jumped in front of the moving bus and sustained injuries, no such suggestion was put to the respondent herein (petitioner) while he was deposing as P.W.1. In the absence of any such suggestion put to the respondent herein (petitioner) while he was in the box, the interested testimony of R.W.1, sole witness examined on the side of the appellant, cannot be given any credence. .12. In the counter statement, it has been averred by the appellant that while the bus was proceeding towards Boothamangalam bus stop, the respondent herein (petitioner) jumped in front of the bus in an attempt to commit suicide. On the other hand, the evidence of R.W.1 is to the following effect: ."After passengers were allowed to alight from the bus at Boothamangalam bus stop, the bus was moved and there after the respondent herein came across the moving bus and fell down." .13. As per the averment found in counter statement, before ever the bus reached Boothamangalam bus stop and while it was proceeding towards Boothamangalam bus stop, the respondent herein (petitioner) jumped in front of the bus and got injured. On the other hand, as per the testimony of R.W.1, the respondent jumped in front of the bus when the bus was proceeding away from Boothamangalam bus stop after dropping the passengers in the said bus stop. The same is a very vital contradiction to improbablise the case of the appellant transport corporation and probablise the case of the respondent herein (petitioner). The evidence of R.W.1 to the effect that on enquiry he came to know that the respondent fell in front of the bus in an attempt to commit suicide, remains an interested testimony without corroboration. R.W.1 would state that on enquiry he came to know that the respondent made an attempt to commit suicide by falling in front of the bus. R.W.1 would state that on enquiry he came to know that the respondent made an attempt to commit suicide by falling in front of the bus. But he has not stated with whom he enquired and from whom he received the information. R.W.1 has gone to the extent of stating that he gave a complaint to the police to the effect that the respondent herein (petitioner) fell in front of the bus in an attempt to commit suicide and the police failed to take any action based on his complaint. But the fact remains that it was the petitioner statement based on which the police registered a case against R.W.1. The same will make it crystal clear that the above said evidence of R.W.1 is far from being reliable. The Tribunal, on a proper appreciation of evidence, has rightly rejected the above said contention of the appellant transport corporation and recorded a correct finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No.TN-32 N-0323 belonging to the appellant transport corporation by its driver. Therefore, the challenge made to the said finding of the Tribunal regarding the question of negligence has got to be discountenanced. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal regarding the question of negligence is hereby confirmed. 14. At the time of accident, the respondent herein (petitioner), according to the averments made in the claim petition, was aged about 34 years and was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as a carpenter. Even though documents like birth certificate or school certificate have not been produced, his age has been noted in the Accident Register as 34 years. The treatment record marked as Ex.A3 lends support to the contention of the respondent herein (petitioner) that he was aged about 34 years at the time of accident. However, in the statement given to the police which formed basis of the FIR, the petitioner had given his age as 35 years. In the absence of contra evidence, relying on the same, the Tribunal has chosen to take the age of the respondent herein at the time of accident as 35 years. The same cannot be termed either defective or infirm. 15. It was the contention of the respondent herein (petitioner) that he was having a monthly income of Rs.3,000/- as a carpenter before he sustained injuries in the accident. The same cannot be termed either defective or infirm. 15. It was the contention of the respondent herein (petitioner) that he was having a monthly income of Rs.3,000/- as a carpenter before he sustained injuries in the accident. Though the Tribunal accepted the evidence of P.W.1 that he was a carpenter, it assessed his monthly income at Rs.1,500/-per month. There cannot be any grievance over the fixation of the monthly income at Rs.1,500/-for a carpenter, which according to the opinion of this court, is far below the average income of an artisan like carpenter. The respondent herein (petitioner), besides producing Ex.A4 -disability certificate issued by a qualified orthopaedic surgeon, examined the said Medical Practitioner as P.W.2 to substantiate his case that the injuries sustained by him in the accident led to permanent disability. Clear evidence has been adduced to the effect that he suffered fracture of both the bones on the left leg and an injury on the dorsal part of right feet. P.W.2 - Medical Practitioner assessed the permanent disability suffered by the respondent herein at 46%. There was mal-union of fractured bones on the left leg besides deformity, which resulted in restriction of movements of ankle joint and lose of muscle strength. Though P.W.2, a qualified practitioner specialised in ortho surgery has assessed the disability at 46%, the Tribunal, without assigning any reason, has reduced it to 36% and awarded compensation on the basis of its conclusion that the respondent suffered permanent disability to the tune of 36%. The appellant transport corporation cannot have any grievance over the same since the Tribunal has taken a lesser percentage of permanet disability than the one certified by a qualified Medical Practitioner specialised in the field of orthopaedic surgery. 16. The Tribunal has adopted multiplier method to assess compensation for permanent disability resulting in loss of earning capacity. For permanent disability method of awarding lumpsum payment may be adopted in which case loss of earning capacity and loss of amenities caused by the permanent disability cannot be separately itemised. Or in the alternative, loss of future earning capacity, without awarding a lumpsum amount for permanent disability, can be assessed. If such a method is adopted there wont be any impediment for awarding a separate amount for loss of amenities caused by the permanent disability in addition to the award of the sum assessed as compensation for loss of earning capacity. If such a method is adopted there wont be any impediment for awarding a separate amount for loss of amenities caused by the permanent disability in addition to the award of the sum assessed as compensation for loss of earning capacity. In either case, the actual loss of earning during the period of treatment can be separately awarded. Medical expenses, extra nourishment, pain and suffering and transport expenses also can be awarded. .17. In this case, the Tribunal seems to have adopted the second method. However, in addition to the amount assessed as compensation for the loss of earning capacity, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount for loss of amenities caused by the permanent disability. While assessing the damages for loss of earning capacity, the Tribunal adopted multiplier method. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that multiplier method should not be adopted in case of permanent disability. In support of his case, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Veluchamy and another" reported in 2005 ACJ 1483 . 18. A perusal of the said judgment of the Division Bench will show that indiscriminate application of multiplier method without considering its suitability to the particular case of injury has alone been held to be improper. The application of multiplier method to injury cases resulting in permanent injury leading to loss of earning capacity has not been altogether ruled out. In this case, considering the fact that the respondent herein (petitioner) happened to be a carpenter, this court is of the considered view that there is nothing wrong in the Tribunals choice of multiplier method for awarding damages to the respondent. The Tribunal also applied proper multiplier and came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs.97,200/- was the appropriate amount to be awarded as compensation for the loss of earning capacity. No interference can be made with the same. A meagre sum of Rs.5,000/- alone, in a case of fracture of both the bones of the left leg leading to permanent disability, has been awarded by the Tribunal. A sum of Rs.1,000/-towards transport expenses, a sum of Rs.2,500/-towards expenses for extra nourishment and a sum of Rs.1,500/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment have been awarded by the Tribunal. No amount has been awarded as compensation towards medical expenses. A sum of Rs.1,000/-towards transport expenses, a sum of Rs.2,500/-towards expenses for extra nourishment and a sum of Rs.1,500/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment have been awarded by the Tribunal. No amount has been awarded as compensation towards medical expenses. There is scope for the respondent to contend that the said amounts towards pain and suffering and loss of earning during treatment are inadequate. On the other hand there is no scope for the appellant to contend the amount awarded under various heads to be either excessive or exorbitant. .19. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to the conclusion that the challenge made to the award of the Tribunal or the question of quantum does not have any merit in it and hence the award of the Tribunal should be confirmed so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned. However, this court is convinced with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the award of interest at the rate of 12% per annum is excessive and the same deserves to be reduced. Considering the rate of bank interest during the relevant period, this court deems it fit to reduce the rate of interest from 12% to 9% per annum. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to the conclusion that the award of the Tribunal is liable to be confirmed subject to a modification regarding the rate of interest by reducing the same from 12% to 9% per annum. 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award of the Tribunal is modified by reducing the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal from 12% to 9% per annum. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.