Judgment :- This civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, which figured as the sole respondent in the MCOP as against the award dated 01.03.2002 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Nagapattinam in MCOP No.175 of 2001 on the file of the said Tribunal. .2. The respondent herein had filed the above said MCOP against the appellant herein claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road transport accident that occurred on 25.01.2001. The averments made by the respondent hererin in his petition MCOP No.175 of 2001 are as follows:- .On 25.01.2001 at about 3.30 p.m, the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing Regn. No.TN-50 A-9522 along Annavasal street in Mannargudi and the said motor cycle was driven by one Tamizharasan. While they were thus proceeding in the said motor cycle, the bus bearing Regn. No.TN-49 N-1070 belonging to the appellant transport corporation came there driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the said bus dashed against the motor cycle in which the respondent herein/petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider. Due to the said impact, the respondent herein/petitioner was thrown away and he sustained grievous injuries including a fracture in the right hand and a fracture in the right leg for which he took first aid treatment at Government hospital, Mannargudi. Thereafter, he was transferred to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur. Subsequently for better treatment, the respondent herein/claimant got admitted in Vinodhagan Memorial Hospital, Thanjavur. A criminal case was registered by the Mannargudi Police in Crime No.76 of 2001 for offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 IPC. The accident occurred purely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation and hence the appellant transport corporation should be held liable to pay compensation. .3. Based on the above said pleadings the respondent herein had prayed that an award should be passed directing the appellant transport corporation to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation together with interest 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 and the alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. 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 and the alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. On the other hand, it was contended therein that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the respondent and while the said bus was nearing Mannarguid bus stand at four road junction, all of a sudden the motor cycle emerged from the left side and attempted to cross the road without noticing the bus and that the same alone led to the unfortunate accident. It was the further contention of the respondent that the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties in so far as the owner and the insurer of the motor cycle were not arrayed as parties in the MCOP. The petition allegations regarding the age, income and nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner were also denied in the counter statement. The appellant transport corporation also contended that the amount claimed as compensation was highly arbitrary and excessive. Based on the above said contentions, the appellant herein/respondent in the MCOP had prayed for the dismissal of the MCOP with cost. 5. The Tribunal framed necessary issues and conducted trial in which, two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and nine documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 on the side of the respondent herein/claimant, whereas no witness was examined and do document was marked on the side of the appellant herein/respondent. 6. Upon considering the evidence in the light of the arguments advanced on either side, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the respondent herein/petitioner that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant herein by its driver and that the petitioner was entitled to claim compensation from the appellant transport corporation/ respondent. .7. The Tribunal took the age as on the date of accident and monthly income of the petitioner prior to the accident as 25 years and Rs.2,000/-respectively. Relying on Ex.P9 - Disability certificate issued by the medical officer who was examined as P.W.2, the Tribunal held that the injuries sustained by the respondent herein/petitioner in the MCOP resulted in 50% permanent disability. Relying on Ex.P9 - Disability certificate issued by the medical officer who was examined as P.W.2, the Tribunal held that the injuries sustained by the respondent herein/petitioner in the MCOP resulted in 50% permanent disability. Opining further that it had also resulted in equal percentage of loss of future earning capacity, the Tribunal assessed the future loss of earning at Rs.1,000/- per month which is equivalent to Rs.12,000/- per annum. Selecting 17 to be appropriate multiplier, the Tribunal assessed damages for future loss of earning capacity at Rs.2,04,000/-. Adding a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards expenses on extra nourishment and a further sum of Rs.53,480/- covered by the medical bills produced by the respondent herein/petitioner and marked as Ex.P3 to Ex.P7 towards damages for medical expenses, the Tribunal fixed the total amount of compensation to which the petitioner was entitled at Rs.2,67,480/-. Consequently, the Tribunal passed an award directing the appellant herein/respondent in the MCOP to pay the above said sum of Rs.2,67,480/-together with an interest on the said sum at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation as compensation to the respondent herein along with proportionate cost. 8. Challenging the above said judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Nagapattinam dated 01.03.2002 made in M.C.O.P.No.175 of 2001, the appellant transport corporation has brought-forth this civil miscellaneous appeal on various grounds set out in the memorandum of civil miscellaneous appeal. 9. The points that arise for consideration in this civil miscellaneous appeal are as follows: " 1. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation by its driver was the sole cause of the accident is erroneous? 2. Whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive requiring downward revision?" .10. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation by its driver was the sole cause of the accident is erroneous? 2. Whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive requiring downward revision?" .10. Mr.M.Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal erred in holding that the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation drove it in a rash and negligent manner and that the same was the sole cause of the accident; that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence adduced in this regard; that the award of a sum of Rs.2,04,000/-as compensation for permanent disability by the Tribunal was highly excessive; that the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier method to a case of injuries resulting in permanent disability and that hence the award of the Tribunal should be interfered with and the amount of compensation should be drastically reduced. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent herein/petitioner would contend that the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation by its driver; that there was no defect or infirmity in applying multiplier method in a case of permanent disability and that the amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot be reduced as the same is less than the reasonable expectation of the respondent herein/petitioner. 12. This court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side. The materials available on record were also perused. .13. The facts that the accident took place in Annavasal street, Mannargudi on 25.01.2001 at about 3.30 p.m and that in the accident the bus bearing Regn.No.TN-49 N-1070 belonging to the appellant transport corporation dashed against the motor cycle bearing Regn.No.TN-50 A-9522, in which one Tamizharasan and the petitioner was proceeding as rider and the pillion rider respectively have not been disputed. On the other hand, the petition averment that the driver of the bus acted with rashness and negligence in driving the bus which alone led to the accident has been disputed by the appellant transport corporation. On the other hand, the petition averment that the driver of the bus acted with rashness and negligence in driving the bus which alone led to the accident has been disputed by the appellant transport corporation. Besides examining himself as P.W.1 to show that there was no negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle and that it was due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus the accident took place, the petitioner has produced Ex.P1 - copy of the first information report. It shows, it was the driver of the bus against whom police registered a case for offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC in crime No.76/01 on the file of Mannarguid Police Station. The registration of the said criminal case against against the appellants driver has not been disputed. When such is the case, the respondent should have come forward to adduce evidence to show that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation and that on the other hand the rider of the motor cycle in which the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider alone acted with rashness and negligence, which resulted in the unfortunate accident. But the appellant transport corporation has not chosen to do so. As the petitioner himself deposed in support of the petition averments and produced Ex.P1 to corroborate his evidence, in the absence of any contra evidence, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation by its driver cannot be held either defective or infirm. There is no room, whatsoever, to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal. Accordingly point No.1 is answered agaisnt the appellant and the finding of the Tribunal regarding the question of negligence is hereby confirmed. 14. The next contention raised by the appellant transport corporation is that the claim petition should have been rejected as the same was not maintainable in view of nonjoinder of necessary parties. Accordingly point No.1 is answered agaisnt the appellant and the finding of the Tribunal regarding the question of negligence is hereby confirmed. 14. The next contention raised by the appellant transport corporation is that the claim petition should have been rejected as the same was not maintainable in view of nonjoinder of necessary parties. In the counter statement filed by the appellant transport corporation, the said contention had been raised on the ground that the owner and insurer of the motor cycle bearing Regn.No.TN-50 A-9522 in which the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider at the time of accident had not been made parties to the MCOP. Though the appellant transport corporation had chosen to incorporate such a plea in the grounds of appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that he could not advance any argument in support of the said contention for the simple reason that when a victim of a road transport accident makes a claim against the owner of one of the vehicles alone, when more than one vehicle were involved in the said accident, basing his claim on a specific contention that the accident took place due to the fault on the part of the driver of the vehicle belonging to the respondent, he has to either win or lose according to the result of his attempt to prove such a contention. In such a case, the claim petition cannot be rejected on the ground of non-joinder of parties as the owner and insurer of any other vehicle involved in the accident have not been made parties to the MCOP. Therefore, the said contention of the appellant also has got to be rejected as untenable. 15. Coming to the question of the quantum of compensation to which the respondent herein/petitioner is entitled, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the application of multiplier method to the case on hand is erroneous and that the amount awarded as compensation is highly excessive and exorbitant. The application of multiplier method is sought to be attacked based on the observation of a division bench of this court made in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., - vs. -Veluchamy and another reported in 2005 ACJ 1483 . The application of multiplier method is sought to be attacked based on the observation of a division bench of this court made in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., - vs. -Veluchamy and another reported in 2005 ACJ 1483 . But a proper consideration of the said judgment will reveal that the application of multiplier method to injury cases resulting in permanent disability is not altogether ruled out and that only indiscriminate use of multiplier method without considering the suitability of such method to the particular case alone was held to be improper. In this case, the respondent herein/petitioner had sustained a fracture in the right hand and a fracture in the right leg for which he took first aid treatment at Government Hospital, Mannargudi. Subsequently, as evidenced by Ex.A4, Ex.A5 and Ex.A7, he took treatment in Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur and Vinodhagan Memorial Hospital, Thanjavur for a period of one month. The documents produced as Ex.P4 to Ex.P8 and especially Ex.P9 will show that there was malunion and restriction of movements of the joints which resulted in permanent functional disability. Dr.Rajagopal who issued Ex.A9-Diability certificate also has deposed as P.W.2. He has assessed the disability at 77%. Even in the absence of any contra evidence, the Tribunal chose to hold that the petitioner sustained 50% permanent disability alone as against 77% disability certified by P.W.2. Of course the Tribunal has not assigned any reason for not accepting the assessment of disability made by the medical officer. It has also failed to assign reasons as to how it arrived at a conclusion that the disability could be assessed at 50%. Though the said finding which is a deviation from the assessment made by the medical officer could have been challenged by the respondent herein/petitioner, the respondent has not chosen to challenge the same by filing rither an appeal or cross-objection. Therefore, this court comes to the conclusion that the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner had sustained permanent disability to the tune of 50% cannot be interfered with and the same has got to be confirmed. .16. Besides making clear pleadings that the petitioner was a mechanic, evidence has also been adduced through P.W.1 to that effect. However, excepting the deposition of P.W.1, there is no document to prove that he was having a monthly income of Rs.6,000/- as claimed by him in the petition. .16. Besides making clear pleadings that the petitioner was a mechanic, evidence has also been adduced through P.W.1 to that effect. However, excepting the deposition of P.W.1, there is no document to prove that he was having a monthly income of Rs.6,000/- as claimed by him in the petition. As such, the Tribunal took his monthly income prior to the date of accident to be Rs.2,000/-. The said amount, according to the view of this court shall be even less than the minimum amount that may be earned by the mechanic. Evidence has been adduced to the effect that the petitioner was aged about 25 years. It is true that the petitioner has not produced birth certificate or school certificate to prove his age. In the accident register, marked as Ex.P3, his age has been noted as 28 years. Similarly, in the discharge summary issued by Vinodhagan Memorial Hospital, marked as Ex.P5, his age has been noted as 27 years. Therefore, it is proper to hold that the respondent, at the time of accident had completed the age of 28 years as reflected in the accident register. A man aged about 28 years, even if it is proved that he his not a qualified mechanic, will be expected to earn averagely not less than Rs.2,000/- per month. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal fixing the monthly income of the respondent herein/petitioner prior to the date of accident at Rs.2,000/- cannot be held erroneous and no interference in favour of the appellant, is called for in this regard. 17. As the respondent herein/petitioner sustained fractures on the right hand and right leg which resulted in disability of the said limbs, this court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has held the disability to have resulted in loss of equal percentage of future earning capacity and that hence the assessment of future loss of earning at Rs.1,000/-per month (Rs.12,000/- per annum) is neither erroneous nor defective. For a person aged about 28 years, the Tribunal has rightly selected 17 as the appropriate multiplier. The product of annual loss of earning and the selected multiplier, namely Rs.2,04,000/-has been rightly assessed as compensation for the loss of future earning. The medical bills produced by the respondent herein/petitioner and marked as Ex.P3 to Ex.P7 cover a sum of Rs.53,480/-. For a person aged about 28 years, the Tribunal has rightly selected 17 as the appropriate multiplier. The product of annual loss of earning and the selected multiplier, namely Rs.2,04,000/-has been rightly assessed as compensation for the loss of future earning. The medical bills produced by the respondent herein/petitioner and marked as Ex.P3 to Ex.P7 cover a sum of Rs.53,480/-. The Tribunal has chosen to accept the same and award the said amount as compensation for medical expenses. Besides the said amounts, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards expenses for extra nourishment which cannot be said to be either unreasonable or excessive. The fact that the petitioner sustained two fractures, one on the right leg and another on the right hand and both of them resulted in permanent disability of the respective limbs, will be enough to hold that the respondent herein/petitioner would be entitled to a substantial amount as compensation for pain and suffering. Even then the Tribunal has chosen to award only a sum of Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering and by no stretch of imagination the same can be challenged as excessive or exorbitant. .18. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to the conclusion that though there was possibility for awarding slightly a higher amount as compensation, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,67,480/-and that hence the challenge made to the award on the ground that the said amount is excessive or exorbitant cannot be countenanced. .There is no merit in the civil miscellaneous appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. 19. In the result, confirming the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Nagapattinam dated 01.03.2002 made in M.C.O.P.No.175 of 2001, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost in this appeal.