Judgment :- This appeal is directed against the award dated 30.11.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judge) at Nagapattinam, made in M.A.C.T.O.P. No: 345 of 2000. 2. (i) The claimant before the Tribunal filed the claim petition alleging that when she was travelling in the bus TN-49-0649 on 25.04.1999 belonging the appellant transport Corporation, due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver, the bus met with an accident in which she suffered injuries in her hands and legs and therefore, she claimed a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on different heads. (ii) The transport corporation resisted the claim on the ground that the bus was not driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and the alleged injuries were sustained by the passengers of the bus when the driver tried to raise the bus from a sand pit and hence, the transport corporation cannot be held responsible for the injuries suffered by the claimant. 3. The Tribunal, after considering all the relevant materials and documents placed before it, came to the conclusion that the driver of the bus was responsible for the accident and awarded a sum of Rs.1,28,500/-as compensation to the claimant on different heads. Hence, this appeal by the Transport Corporation. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. No appearance for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant transport Corporation would submit in his argument that the trial Court had wrongly come to the conclusion of awarding a sum of Rs. 1,28,500/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant and the permanent disability said to have been caused due to the said injury without appraising the evidence produced before it in a proper manner. He would submit in his argument that there is no proper evidence let in by the claimant to show that she was on the job of vending vegetables and that she was permanently disabled from continuing her profession and hence, the multiplier method followed by the trial Court is not sustainable. He would further submit in his argument that the calculation of compensation on the basis of the multiplier method is on the higher side and, therefore, the compensation should have been calculated on the basis of percentage basis and hence, the award passed by the lower Court should be modified suitably. He would further submit in his argument that the calculation of compensation on the basis of the multiplier method is on the higher side and, therefore, the compensation should have been calculated on the basis of percentage basis and hence, the award passed by the lower Court should be modified suitably. Thus, he would request the Court to reduce the compensation and thereby to allow the appeal. 6. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and also perused both the oral and documentary evidence produced before the trial Court. I have also perused the judgment passed by the lower Court. It is an admitted case that the claimant / respondent and her husband were travelling in the bus belonging to the appellant Corporation in relation to their profession of vending vegetables. At that time, the driver of the bus had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused an accident and thereby the appellant and her husband sustained grievous injuries namely fracture of rightside clavical bone and left hand wrist bone and the claimant had taken treatment in the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital for four days as in-patient and thereafter as an out-patient. The said accident itself would speak volume about the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the appellant Corporation and, therefore, the liability to pay compensation by the appellant Corporation to the claimant cannot be shattered. 7. When we go through the evidence regarding the injuries and permanent disability sustained by the claimant in the accident, the accident register which was produced as Ex.A.6 would go to show that the claimant had sustained two fractures and both the fractures are certainly grievous in nature. The claimant was taking treatment for four days as in-patient and thereafter, continued the treatment as out-patient. During the said period, she would have suffered much pain and suffering for which the lower Court had not granted adequate compensation. It had awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-only. Whereas, the correct compensation would be a sum of Rs.5,000/- per injury and accordingly, a sum of Rs.10,000/-is awarded towards Pain and Suffering. The permanent disablement of the claimant was assessed by the Doctor at 51 % and the disability certificate is produced as Ex.A.4. No reason was put forth by the appellant Corporation for refusing the opinion of the Doctor. The permanent disablement of the claimant was assessed by the Doctor at 51 % and the disability certificate is produced as Ex.A.4. No reason was put forth by the appellant Corporation for refusing the opinion of the Doctor. There is also no dispute that the claimant was vending vegetables. The lower Court had opted to fix the annual income of the claimant at Rs. 15,000/- for the purpose of ascertaining the compensation for permanent disability through multiplier method. There is no infirmity in the decision made by the lower Court since the fractures sustained by the claimant would certainly affect her profession of carrying and vending vegetables. Therefore, the calculation made on the basis of the multiplier method is permissible in this case. 16 was used as the multiplier in this case. The calculation made thus, awarding a compensation at Rs.1,22,400./- on the annual income of Rs.15,000/-is perfectly alright. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,100/- towards transport charges, extra nourishment and attendant benefits. In my considered opinion, a sum of Rs.1,500/- under each head would be the correct compensation and accordingly, a sum of Rs.4,500/- is awarded for extra nourishment, attendants charges and transport expenses. Thus when we calculate the total compensation it exceeds the compensation awarded by the lower Court. However, the respondent claimant had neither preferred any cross appeal nor any separate appeal. In the said circumstances, it has become necessary for this Court to confirm the quantum of award passed by the lower Court. 8. However, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the lower Court had awarded interest at 12 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment which is not in accordance with law. The accident had happened in the year 1999. During that period, the prevailing rate of interest was only 9%. Therefore, the awarding of interest at the rate of 12% is not correct. Hence, this Court is inclined to modify the award to that extent only. For the foregoing reasons, while confirming the award passed by the lower Court this Court only modifies the interest by reducing it from 12 % to 9 %. In all other respects, the award passed by the Tribunal is sustained. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.