Judgment :- Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) that figured as the sole respondent in MACTOP No.268/1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub-Judge), Cuddalore is the applicant herein. 2. For the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 26.06.1995 involving the bus bearing Registration No.TN-32 N-0536 belonging to the appellant transport corporation, the respondent herein/petitioner had filed the above said MACTOP claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. It was contended therein that the accident occurred solely due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation. 3. The claim was resisted by the appellant transport corporation by filing a counter statement admitting the factum of accident but denying the other petition allegations regarding the age and income of the respondent/petitioner, nature of injuries sustained by him, nature of treatment he had and the consequences of the injuries. It was also contended therein that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation and that it was the respondent herein/petitioner who invited the unfortunate accident by losing his balance while he was riding his bicycle as he was under the influence of alcohol. With the said contention, the appellant transport corporation had prayed for the dismissal of the claim in its entirety. 4. Based on the said pleadings made by the contesting parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues and conducted trial in which two witnesses, including the respondent herein/petitioner, were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and five documents were marked as Ex.A1 to A5 on the side of the respondent herein/petitioner. On the side of the appellant transport corporation, the driver of the alleged offending vehicle was examined as the sole witness (R.W.1) and no document was marked. 5. At the conclusion of trial, the Tribunal considered the evidence, both oral and documentary, in the light of the arguments advanced on either side and came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the appellant transport corporation that the injured was under the influence of alcohol. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the injuries sustained by the respondent herein/petitioner resulted in permanent disability. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the appellant transport corporation that the injured was under the influence of alcohol. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the injuries sustained by the respondent herein/petitioner resulted in permanent disability. However, as against the assessment of disability made by the Medical Practitioner, who was examined as P.W.2, at 40%, the Tribunal held that the respondent herein/petitioner suffered permanent disability to the tune of 20%. Without giving a finding regarding the age of the respondent herein/petitioner, perhaps accepting the age noted in the petition, the Tribunal selected 15 as the appropriate multiplier for assessing compensation for the permanent disability and loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the respondent herein/petitioner at Rs.2,100/- and arrived at the figure Rs.75,600/-as the amount of damages for the permanent disability, loss of earning capacity and the loss of amenities caused by the disability. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.3,000/-towards expenditure incurred on extra nourishment and Rs.25,000/- for the grievous injuries sustained by the respondent herein/petitioner. The particulars of assessment of compensation made by the Tribunal are as under: For permanent disability : Rs. 75,600/- For grievous injuries : Rs. 25,000/- For pain and sufferings : Rs. 5,000/- For extra nourishment : Rs. 3,000/- Total : Rs.1,08,600/- ============ The said amount was directed to be paid with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The appellant transport corporation/respondent was also directed to pay proportionate cost. 6. Challenging the above said award, the appellant herein/respondent has come forward with the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on various grounds set out in the Memorandum of Appeal. 7. This Court heard the submissions made by Ms.S. Geetha, learned counsel for the appellant and by Mr.S. Dakshinamoorthy, learned counsel for the respondent. The materials available on record were also perused. 8. The sole respondent before the Tribunal is the appellant in this appeal. Though the appeal has been filed challenging the finding of the Tribunal regarding the question of negligence also, learned counsel for the appellant has chosen to concentrate on the question of quantum alone, without seriously disputing the finding of the Tribunal regarding the question of negligence. 8. The sole respondent before the Tribunal is the appellant in this appeal. Though the appeal has been filed challenging the finding of the Tribunal regarding the question of negligence also, learned counsel for the appellant has chosen to concentrate on the question of quantum alone, without seriously disputing the finding of the Tribunal regarding the question of negligence. In fact, apart from the oral testimony of P.W.1, the respondent herein/petitioner, there is Ex.A.1 -the certified copy of the First Information Report, the contents of which lend corroboration to the testimony of P.W.1 regarding the manner in which the accident took place. Clear evidence has been adduced on the side of the respondent herein/petitioner to the effect that while he was proceeding in his bicycle, the driver of the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. The only evidence available on the side of the appellant herein/respondent is the testimony of R.W.1, the driver of the offending vehicle. He would state that he found the respondent herein/petitioner under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident. Admittedly the hospital document does not contain any finding to the effect that the respondent herein/petitioner was under the influence of alcohol. When such is the case, the interested testimony of R.W.1 cannot be accepted in preference to the evidence adduced on the side of the respondent herein/petitioner. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the evidence of R.W.1 and the contention of the appellant herein/respondent in this regard and came to the correct conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle viz., the bus bearing registration No.TN-32-N-0536, belonging to the appellant transport corporation. Hence the said finding of the tribunal deserves to be confirmed. 9. The award of the Tribunal is sought to be attacked based on the contention of the appellant that the Tribunal should not have adopted multiplier method in a case of injury leading to permanent disability. The learned counsel for the appellant cited the judgment of a division bench of this court pronounced on United India Insurance Co. Ltd., - vs. - Veluchamy and another reported in 2005 ACJ 1483 in support of his contention that in case of injuries multiplier method should not be adopted. The learned counsel for the appellant cited the judgment of a division bench of this court pronounced on United India Insurance Co. Ltd., - vs. - Veluchamy and another reported in 2005 ACJ 1483 in support of his contention that in case of injuries multiplier method should not be adopted. This court, after perusing the judgment of the division bench cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, is of the considered view that the adoption of multiplier method in injury cases has not been completely ruled out. What the division bench has held is that indiscriminate application of multiplier method in injury cases should not be made without considering the suitability of such a method to the case. In the case on hand from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Ex.A1, A2 and A4, it is obvious that the petitioner sustained a compound fracture on the right hand near elbow and that there was malunion causing deformity. The same would have definitely affected his functional ability. The petitioner has been proved to be a registered fisherman. Therefore the functional disability should have resulted in loss of his earning capacity. But in all cases we cannot equate the percentage of functional disability with the percentage of loss of earning capacity. There may be cases in which the percentage of functional disability may be lesser and the loss of earning capacity may be greater. Likewise there may be cases wherein the percentage of functional disability may be greater and the loss of earning capacity may be lesser. 10. In this case, the Tribunal seems to have assessed the extent of disability at 20% as against the assessment made by P.W.2 -Medical Practitioner at 40%. Of course, it is true that the Tribunal has not assigned any reason for rejecting the assessment made by the Medical Practitioner and substituting its won assessment. Even then, the percentage adopted by the Tribunal can be taken as the percentage of loss of future earning capacity rather than the percentage of functional disability. Under such circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the multiplier method should not have been adopted has got to be rejected as untenable. Under such circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the multiplier method should not have been adopted has got to be rejected as untenable. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this court comes to the conclusion that the Tribunal has rightly adopted the multiplier method for assessing compensation for loss of permanent disability and loss of earning capacity. The amount arrived at by the Tribunal on the above head, namely Rs.75,600/-does not require any interference and the same has got to be confirmed. 11. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, of course a tenable one, that having awarded a sum of Rs.75,600/-towards permanent disability and loss of income, the Tribunal should not have chosen to award a further sum of Rs.25,000/- for grievous injuries. The learned counsel for the respondent has made a weak attempt to contend that the said amount was awarded for the pain and sufferings caused to the respondent herein/petitioner because of the grievous injuries sustained by him and that hence the same should be confirmed. This court comes to the conclusion that the said contention raised on behalf of the respondent cannot be countenanced. The grievous injuries sustained by the respondent have resulted in permanent disability and compensation has been awarded for the permanent disability. If separate amount is awarded for the grievous injuries which led to the permanent disability, the same will amount to awarding compensation for the causes as well as consequences resulting in duplication of damages. Hence this court is of the considered view that a sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation for grievous injuries has got to be disallowed. 12. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs.3,000/-towards extra nourishment. The said amounts, according to the opinion of this court, cannot be termed excessive or exorbitant. Therefore, no interference can be made regarding the same. This court is of the view that more amount could have been awarded for pain and suffering and some amount could have been awarded towards loss of earning during the period of treatment. The said amounts, according to the opinion of this court, cannot be termed excessive or exorbitant. Therefore, no interference can be made regarding the same. This court is of the view that more amount could have been awarded for pain and suffering and some amount could have been awarded towards loss of earning during the period of treatment. As the same has not been canvassed on behalf of the respondent herein/petitioner, this court comes to the conclusion that the award of damages made by the Tribunal on all other heads except "for grievous injuries", have got to be confirmed. This court, thus comes to the conclusion that the award of the Tribunal shall be modified by reducing the total amount of compensation from Rs.1,08,000/- to Rs.83,600/-and that in all other respects, the award of the Tribunal deserves to be confirmed. 12. In the result the appeal is allowed in part and the award of the Tribunal is modified by reducing the total amount of compensation to Rs.83,600/- from Rs.1,08,600/-. In all other respects the award of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed. Consequently, connected C.M.P. is closed. There shall be no order as to cost.