Judgment : S. PALANIVELU, J. Both the appeals are arising from the judgment and decree dated 30.12.2002 made in C.M.A. No. 848 of 1999 on the file of the VI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai granting compensation of Rs. 6,70,500/- as against the claim of 12,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident that happened on 112. 1998 at about 00.15 hours due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep bearing Regn. No. TN 01 G 0672 belonging to the respondent department. 2. C.M.A. No. 797 of 2003 is preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation while C.M.A. No. 3350 of 2003 is preferred by the Department praying to set aside the impugned award and decree. For the sake of convenience the parties in these appeals will be hereinafter referred to according to their status before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal in brief is that on 112. 2008 at about 00.15 hours, while the claimant was riding his motor cycle bearing Regn. No. TSH 1570 from North to South along Anna Salai, Chennai, near Nandanam, Y.M.C.A. “U” turn, a jeep bearing Regn. No. TNO1G0672 came in a rash and negligent manner without showing any signal dashed against the motor cycle by means of which he sustained grievous injuries and he was hospitalized. The jeep driver, who attempted to take “U” turn so negligently and in a rash manner without any indication alone was responsible for the accident. Hence, he filed the original Petition seeking compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- from the respondents. .4. In the counter, the respondent department resisted the claim and contended that While the claimant took “U” turn, he dashed against the bumper of the jeep and thereby the accident took place. The injured was alone responsible for the accident. At the time of accident, he was in an inebriated condition. It is false to alleged that the jeep driver came at a great speed and caused the accident. In any event, the compensation claimed is excessive. Hence, the petition has to be dismissed. 5. As far as fastening of liability on jeep driver is concerned, Mrs. At the time of accident, he was in an inebriated condition. It is false to alleged that the jeep driver came at a great speed and caused the accident. In any event, the compensation claimed is excessive. Hence, the petition has to be dismissed. 5. As far as fastening of liability on jeep driver is concerned, Mrs. Bhavani Subbarayan, learned Special Government Pleader (Original Side) would submit that inasmuch as the Judicial Magistrate has turned down the version of the claimant in a criminal proceedings that the jeep driver came in a rash and negligent manner and he was acquitted from the charges, no liability could be fastened on the respondent. 6. Conversely, Mr. M. Swamikannu, learned counsel for the claimant would contend that even though the criminal case ended in favour of the jeep driver, still the Tribunal has believed the oral testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who were aware of the accident and in this regard the Tribunal’s findings maybe confirmed. 7. A decision of the Criminal Court does not have the effect of binding nature on the proceedings before the Civil Court including the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the reason that the proof in both the Civil and Criminal cases are having two different categories of standards. In criminal cases, guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, while in civil cases, the rights of the parties or matter in issue shall be decided on preponderance of probabilities. If a party to the case relied upon decision of the criminal Court and insists the Civil Court to give credence to the said decision, it is incumbent upon the party to gather further materials in the case, which would support the observations and the decisions of the criminal Court. If any material is available in the case, which would corroborate or strengthen the decision of the criminal Court, then, there is no embargo for the Civil Court to place reliance upon it. .8. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, excepting the criminal Court judgment, nothing is favour for the side of the respondent Department. Worthwhile it is to note that even the driver of the jeep, who got acquittal before the criminal Court was not brought before the Tribunal to let in evidence about his innocence. .8. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, excepting the criminal Court judgment, nothing is favour for the side of the respondent Department. Worthwhile it is to note that even the driver of the jeep, who got acquittal before the criminal Court was not brought before the Tribunal to let in evidence about his innocence. Had he been examined and subjected to cross examination by the other side, in the light of the evidence adduced by P.W.1 and P.W.2, the Tribunal would have got an occasion to discuss about the negligent attitudes of the jeep driver as well as the claimant. In the absence of any such evidence, the Tribunal and this Court are left with no option except to appreciate the oral accounts of P.Ws. 1 and 2. It is their definite version that the jeep driver came in a rash and negligent manner, while at the place where the vehicle have to take “U” turn and that the claimant was coming in a careful manner. In these circumstances, the findings of the Tribunal to the effect that the jeep, driver was at fault at the time of the accident are unshattered and the same does not call for any interference. 9. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, in the accident the claimant suffered fracture on upper portion of femur which joints with pelvis. Exhibit P-3 is the Discharge Summary issued by Surya Hospital. From the observation notes of the discharge summary, it is found that the Doctor graphically narrated the particulars of surgery and the treatment given to the claimant by interlocking nailing in right femur. It is also stated that plates, nails and screws have been implanted in the region. 10. P.W.4 Doctor who has given Exhibit P-11 Disability Certificate would state that the claimant has suffered fracture in right head as well as right tibia and he could not squat on the floor and malunion occurred and the action of the muscles have also been restricted. He has assessed the permanent disability following the injuries sustained by the claimant at 65% overall. 11. The claimant proved to have operated his own tourist taxi and also worked as driver. The Tribunal has considered the oral and documentary evidence on record and assessed Rs. 10,000/- as monthly income of the injured. In view of this Court it appears to be on the higher side. 11. The claimant proved to have operated his own tourist taxi and also worked as driver. The Tribunal has considered the oral and documentary evidence on record and assessed Rs. 10,000/- as monthly income of the injured. In view of this Court it appears to be on the higher side. It is just and reasonable that a sum of Rs. 4,500/- can be taken as monthly salary. Accordingly, for the loss of income for six month a sum of Rs. 27,000/- could be granted as against the award of Rs. 60,000/- granted by the Tribunal. 12. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- each has been granted for transportation and extra nourishment expenses and another sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards transportation expenses incurred by the claimant to go to Puthur for treatment; Rs. 20,000/- has been granted towards expenses incurred by the claimant on attendant charges to look after him; a sum of Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded towards pain and suffering; and another sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony; further a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been awarded for permanent disability and also a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-has been awarded towards loss of earning power. Both the heads could not be considered independently and compensation has to be awarded under any one of the head. .13. The Tribunal has lost sight of Exhibit P-4 Series of Medical Bills by means of which it is shown that the claimant has spent in all a sum of Rs. 11,970.40 for purchasing the medicines. Considering the above, a rounded sum of Rs. 12,000/- towards medical expenses could be awarded. 14. As far as the compensation awardable under the head of permanent disability is concerned, multiplier method could be adopted since the disablement which the claimant had suffered by means of the accident would certainly disable him from pursuing his regular avocation viz., driving of automobiles. It is evident that he is the owner cum driver of taxi. In these circumstances, there is no impediment to adopt the multiplier theory. Considering the monthly income of the injured at Rs. 4,500/-for the purpose of awarding compensation in limp sum, it can be taken as Rs. 36,000/-per annum. The claimant was aged about 28 years at the time of the accident and as such multiplier 18 could be adopted. Thus total loss of income would come to Rs. 36,000 X 18 X 65 / 100 = Rs. 4,500/-for the purpose of awarding compensation in limp sum, it can be taken as Rs. 36,000/-per annum. The claimant was aged about 28 years at the time of the accident and as such multiplier 18 could be adopted. Thus total loss of income would come to Rs. 36,000 X 18 X 65 / 100 = Rs. 4,21,200/- In view of the above, this Court draws the following list of compensation under various heads: Head under which compensation awarded Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court in modification of like award of the Tribunal In Rupees In Rupees Loss of Income 60,000 27,000 Extra Nourishment 5,000 5,000 Transportation expenses (hospitals) 5,000 5,000 Transportation expenses incurred towards the trip made to Puthur 5,000 5,000 Attendant charges 20,000 20,000 Pain and suffering 25,000 25,000 Mental Agony 25,000 25,000 Medical expenses 12,000 Loss of earning power due to permanent disability 4,00,000 4,21,200 Damage to clothing and articles 500 500 Permanent Disability 1,00,000 - Total 6,70,500 5,45,700 15. In view of the above observations and over all calculations, the award passed by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs. 6,70,500/- to Rs. 5,45,700/-with interest as directed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the claimant fails and the other appeal preferred by the respondent department partly succeeds. 16. In fine, C.M.A. No. 797 of 2003 is dismissed and C.M.A. No. 3350 of 2003 is partly allowed thereby the compensation of Rs. 6,70,500/- is reduced to Rs. 5,45,700/-and the claimant is entitled to proportionate cost. It is stated that the respondent department has already deposited 50% of the award passed by the Tribunal pursuant to the order of this Court dated 24. 2003 in C.M.P. No. 21569 of 2003. Therefore, the respondent Department is directed to deposit the remaining portion of the award amount together with interest at the rate fixed by the trial Court within eight weeks from the date of this order and in other respects the order passed by the Tribunal shall stand good. Considering the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs in these appeals.