Judgment :- The appeal is preferred by the Transport Corporation-appellant against award dated 10.03.2003 made in MCOP No.412 of 2000 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District and Sessions Judge) Salem. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 08.05.2000 at about 6.30 p.m., the respondent/claimant was proceeding in his TVS 50 Moped bearing registration No.TN-29-C-7871 on the left side of Sankari to Salem Main Road. At that time, a bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation bearing registration No.TN-33-N-1013 came from Sankari to Salem with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the TVS 50 Moped, due to which, the claimant and the pillion rider were fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the claimant was admitted in Bharath Hospital, Salem as in-patient. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- 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.1,12,200/-with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Permanent disability Rs. 43,200/- Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/-Mental agony Rs. 20,000/-Medical expenses Rs. 19,170/- Extra nourishment Rs. 830/-Transport expenses Rs. 1,000/-Loss of income due to disability Rs. 6,000/-Repair charges Rs. 2,000/- Total... Rs.1,12,200/- Aggrieved by the same, the Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation questioned only quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and contended that the Tribunal erred in adopting multiplier method for calculating loss of earning capacity in the case of injuries. He further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant, without any 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. Though notice was served on the respondent, there is no representation on his behalf. 5. Heard the counsel. 4. Though notice was served on the respondent, there is no representation on his behalf. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. On the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation one witness was examined and no document was marked to support their claim. P.W.1-Asaithambi is the pillion rider, who travelled along with the claimant. PW2Velappan is the claimant. PW3 is son Ashok. PW4 is Doctor A.E.Manoharan. Exs.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 copy of the wound certificate Exs.P3 and P4 are the copy of the Motor Vehicles Report. Ex.P5 is the copy of the charge sheet. Ex.P6 series are the original Doctor bills. Ex.P7 is the original discharge summary. Ex.P8 is the original wound certificate. Ex.P9 is the original hospital bills. Ex.P10 is the original discharge summary. Ex.P11 is the original disability certificate. Ex.P12 is the original x-ray. RW1 is one Devadoss, who is the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation 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 58 years. He was doing agricultural work and also a coconut wholesale merchant. PW2-claimant has deposed that while he was proceeding in his TVS 50 Moped on the left side of the Sankari to Salem Main Road, the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant, due to which, the claimant and pillion rider had sustained grievous injuries. After the accident, he was admitted in Bharath Hospital, Salem. Ex.P8 is the wound certificate given by the Doctor. He further deposed that he was earning Rs.5000/- per month. PW2- the Doctor has deposed that he has examined the claimant and issued Ex.P11 Disability Certificate, in which, he assessed the disability to the extent of 60% and stated that the claimant had sustained injuries on the 5th, 6th and 7th ribs on the right side. He further deposed that x-ray revealed that the claimant suffered fracture on the right clavical and mal-union of bones on the right side of the clavical and 5th to 8th ribs. He further deposed that x-ray revealed that the claimant suffered fracture on the right clavical and mal-union of bones on the right side of the clavical and 5th to 8th ribs. The Tribunal, considering the above oral and documentary evidence, reduced the disability from 60% to 15%. The Tribunal has fixed the salary of the claimant at Rs.3,000/-per month and the annual income works out to Rs.36,000/-. After taking into consideration the age of the claimant as 58 years, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 8 as per Schedule II and Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and awarded a sum of Rs.43,200/- (Rs.36,000 x 8 x 15/100) towards permanent disability. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Transport Corporation submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted multiplier method in the case of injury. Normally the Courts used to award Rs.1000/- to 2000/-per percentage of disability. In this case, the Tribunal fixed 15% disability. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, I feel that it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.2000/- per percentage of disability and the award amount works out to Rs.30,000/-(Rs.2000 x 15) towards loss of income due to permanent disability as against a sum of Rs.43,200/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, which I feel is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal was wrong in awarding a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards mental agony as already a sum of Rs.20,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering. Considering the above, I feel that the amount of Rs.20,000/-awarded towards mental agony is unwarranted and the same is deleted. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.19,170/- towards medical expenses, which is an actual expenditure incurred by the claimant, the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs.830/-towards extra nourishment and Rs.1000/- towards transport charges and Rs.2,000/-towards repair charges, which I feel is very reasonable and the same are confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/-towards loss of income during treatment period. In this case, the claimant took treatment from 08.05.2000 to 15.05.2000. The Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs.830/-towards extra nourishment and Rs.1000/- towards transport charges and Rs.2,000/-towards repair charges, which I feel is very reasonable and the same are confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/-towards loss of income during treatment period. In this case, the claimant took treatment from 08.05.2000 to 15.05.2000. Though the claimant took treatment in the hospital, no document was filed to substantiate that he was earning Rs.3000/-per month. Hence, the amount of Rs.6,000/- awarded towards loss of earning during treatment period is deleted. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Loss of income due to Permanent disability Rs. 30,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 19,170/- Extra nourishment Rs. 830/- Transport expenses Rs. 1,000/- Repair charges Rs. 2,000/- Total... Rs. 73,000/-Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.73,000/-as against the compensation of Rs.1,12,200/-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 08.05.2000. Keeping in view the date of accident, the rate of interest is modified to 7.5% instead of 9%. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation has submitted that already entire award amount has been deposited as per order passed in CMP No.329 of 2004 in CMA No.64 of 2005 dated 27.01.2005. Hence, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified award amount of Rs.73,000/-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.