Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant-Transport Corporation against award dated 10.07.2003 made in MCOP No.205 of 2002 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.I), Tindivanam. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 26.05.1994 at about 8.55 p.m., the respondent/claimant was proceeding from Thiruvannamalai to Chennai in a bus bearing registration No.TN-32-N-0126 belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation. When the bus nearing Melpappambadi colony, Gingee Road, the driver of the bus driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the tree, due to which, the claimant had sustained grievous injuries all over the body. The claimant was immediately admitted in Government General Hospital, Thiruvannamalai as in-patient. He claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. The appellant-Transport Corporation resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1.Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver or not? 2. What is the compensation the claimant is entitled to? If so, what is the amount and from whom?" After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation and awarded a compensation of Rs.87,100/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of income Rs. 76,500/-Transport charges Rs. 500/-Damages to the clothes Rs. 500/- Loss of income during treatment period Rs. 1,500/-Extra nourishment Rs. 2,000/-Medical Expenses Rs. 1,100/-Pain and sufferings Rs. 5,000/- Total... Rs. 87,100/- Aggrieved by that award, the Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification and that therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P18 were marked. On the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation the driver of the bus was examined and no document was marked to support their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. PW6 is Doctor Sekar. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of the wound certificate. Ex.P3 is the receipt for buying medicines. Ex.P4 is the receipt for medical expenses. Ex.P5 is the out patient chit. Ex.P14 is the disability certificate. Ex.P15 is the x-ray. RW1 one Sagayanathan is the driver of the bus. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 23 years. He is an Agriculturist. He claimed that he is earning a sum of Rs.2,000/-per month. Due to the accident, he had sustained grievous injuries all over the body and also bone fracture. He was admitted in the Government General Hospital, Thiruvannamalai on the same day. It is clear from Ex.P2 wound certificate that the claimant had suffered an injury on the left side hip to an extent of 6.3c.m. and he was admitted in "E" ward and, at the request of the claimant, he was discharged from the hospital. Later the claimant took treatment at Puthur Hospital. Ex.P5 is the certificate issued by Puthur Hospital, in which, it is stated that the claimant took treatment for a period of one month. PW6, Doctor Sekar, who examined the claimant, has issued Ex. P14 Disability certificate to the extent of 40%. Ex.P15 is the x-ray. Though the claimant has deposed in his evidence that he was earning Rs.2,000/- per month from agriculture, no documentary evidence has been furnished that he is owning agricultural land. PW6, Doctor Sekar, who examined the claimant, has issued Ex. P14 Disability certificate to the extent of 40%. Ex.P15 is the x-ray. Though the claimant has deposed in his evidence that he was earning Rs.2,000/- per month from agriculture, no documentary evidence has been furnished that he is owning agricultural land. Hence, the Tribunal fixed the income of the claimant at Rs.1,500/- per month and determined the annual income at Rs.18,000/-and applied multiplier of 17 and arrived at a sum of Rs.3,06,000/-(Rs.18,000 x 17). The Tribunal, considering the Ex.P6 wound certificate and other documents, has fixed the disability to the extent of 25% and the loss of income due to disability works out to Rs.76,500/- (Rs.3,06,000/- x 25/100). The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier method for arriving the loss of income and the Tribunal should have fixed Rs.1000/- for 1% disability and should have awarded only a sum of Rs.25,000/-for 25% disability. Normally, the Courts award Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. It is clear from the above oral and documentary evidence that the Tribunal has reduced the percentage of disability from 40% to 25%. The disability is being fixed by the Tribunal, I feel that it is just and proper to award Rs.2000/-for 1% disability. Thus, the loss of earning due to disability would be Rs.50,000/-(2000x25) as against the award amount of Rs.76,500/-. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.500/-towards transport charges. It is clear from the evidence and Ex.P5 that the claimant took treatment at Puthur for a period of one month. Considering the above, it would be reasonable and appropriate to award a sum of Rs.2000/-towards transport charges as against Rs.500/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.500/-towards damage to the cloths, which I feel is very low and it is very reasonable to award a sum of Rs.1,000/-under this head instead of Rs.500/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,500/-towards loss of income during treatment period. The claimant took treatment for a period of three months. There is no dispute regarding monthly income of Rs.1500/-. Hence, it would be very reasonable and appropriate to award a sum of Rs.4500/-(Rs.1,500x3) towards loss of income during treatment period. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of R.2000/- towards extra nourishment. The claimant took treatment for a period of three months. There is no dispute regarding monthly income of Rs.1500/-. Hence, it would be very reasonable and appropriate to award a sum of Rs.4500/-(Rs.1,500x3) towards loss of income during treatment period. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of R.2000/- towards extra nourishment. Considering the period of treatment, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.2500/-under this head. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1100/- towards medical expenses. Considering Exs.P3 and P4 medical receipts, it would be very reasonable to award a sum of Rs.2000/- under this head as against Rs.1,100/-. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.5000/-towards pain and suffering. Considering the nature of injuries suffered and the wound certificate Ex.P14, I feel that it would be very reasonable and appropriate to award a sum of Rs.7500/- under this head as against Rs.5,000/-. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Loss of income Rs. 50,000/- Transport charges Rs. 2,000/-Damages to the clothes Rs. 1,000/- Loss of income during treatment period Rs. 4,500/- Extra nourishment Rs. 2,500/- Medical Expenses Rs. 2,000/- Pain and sufferings Rs. 7,500/- Total... Rs. 69,500/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.69,500/-as against the compensation of Rs.87,100/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has fixed the rate of interest at 9% p.a from the date of petition, which I feel is very high. The accident has occurred on 26.05.1994. Keeping in view the prevailing rate of interest is 7.5%, the same is modified to 7.5% p.a. instead of 9%p.a.. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation has submitted that already entire award amount has been deposited as per order of this Court dated 22.02.2005. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified award amount of Rs.69,500/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition after adjusting the amount if any, already withdrawn. The appellant-Transport Corporation is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount on making proper application. 8. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.