Judgment :- The appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 112. 2006 made in MCOP No.742 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.III) Namakkal. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The first respondent/claimant met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 19.03.2002 at about 8.45 a.m. While the first respondent/ claimant was trying to get into the bus bearing registration No.TN-28-D-9787, which was belonging to the second respondent and insured with the appellant-Insurance company, on the Mohanur Bus stand in Namakkal District, the driver suddenly moved the same in a rash and negligent manner. Due to which, the claimant fell down from the bus and had sustained abrasion over left knee joint and fracture. The claimant was immediately admitted in R.K. Hospital, Namakkal as in-patient. He claimed a sum of Rs.6,25,000/- but restricted his claim to Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. The appellant-Insurance company resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1.Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus? 2.Whether the appellant is liable to pay compensation to the claimant-first respondent? 3.What is the quantum of compensation that the claimant is entitled to? 4.Any other relief? 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 bus, which belonging to the second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,89,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under: TABLE Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Insurance company has filed the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance company questioned only quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and contended that the amount awarded under various heads by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification. Further he contended that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,52,000/-towards loss of income in the case of injury, which is without basis and justification. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and same has to be set aside. 4. Further he contended that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,52,000/-towards loss of income in the case of injury, which is without basis and justification. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and same has to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the first 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 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. On the side of the appellant-Insurance company no witness was examined and no document was marked to support their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. PW2 is the Doctor Kannappan. Ex.P1 is the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the wound certificate. Ex.P3 is the Motor Vehicle Inspectors report. Ex.P4 is the charge sheet. Ex.P5 is the judgment. Ex.P6 is the medical receipts. Ex,P7 is the X-ray. Ex.P8 is the driving licence. Ex.P9 is the disability certificate. Ex.P10 is the X-ray. 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 second respondent and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 33 years. He was working as a driver. PW1-claimant has deposed that while the first respondent/claimant was trying to get into the bus bearing registration No.TN-28-D-9787, which was belonging to the second respondent and insured with the appellant-Insurance company, the driver suddenly moved the same in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, he fell down from the bus and had sustained abrasion over left knee joint and fracture. He further deposed that immediately he was admitted in R.K. Hospital, Namakkal and took treatment as in-patient for 11 days. He further deposed that he underwent surgery and he is unable to walk or stand as before. PW2 -Dr. Kannapan, who examined the claimant, has assessed the disability at 22% and issued Ex.P9 disability certificate. He further deposed that immediately he was admitted in R.K. Hospital, Namakkal and took treatment as in-patient for 11 days. He further deposed that he underwent surgery and he is unable to walk or stand as before. PW2 -Dr. Kannapan, who examined the claimant, has assessed the disability at 22% and issued Ex.P9 disability certificate. PW2 deposed in his evidence that while he examining the claimant, he found two injuries and the first injury is the simple in nature and the second injury is the grievous in nature and the doctor of R.K. Hospital, Namakkal also stated the same and issued Ex.P2-wound certificate. Considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has came to the conclusion that due to the injuries sustained, the claimant cannot do the driving work and fixed the loss per day at Rs.50/-and determined the monthly loss at Rs.1500/- and fixed the annual loss at Rs.18,000/- (Rs.1500/-x 12). The Tribunal considering the age of the claimant, taken the multiplier as 14 and awarded a sum of Rs.2,52,000/- (Rs.18,000/- x 14) towards loss of income. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company vehemently contended that the amount awarded under the head loss of income is on the higher side and the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier method in the case of injury. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant has not disputed the same. Normally the Courts award Rs.1000/- to 2000/- per percentage of disability. In this case, as per Ex.P9-disability certificate, the disability is 22%. If Rs.2000/-is awarded per percentage of disability, the loss of income works out to Rs.44,000/-. Considering the injuries sustained, I feel that it would be reasonable to award Rs.50,000/-under the head loss of income due to disability as against the sum of Rs.2,52,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards medical expenses, which is an actual expenditure incurred by the claimant. Ex.P6 series are medical bills. Therefore, I feel that the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards pain and suffering which I feel is very low. Considering the nature of injuries suffered, I feel that it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- under this head as against Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, I feel that the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards pain and suffering which I feel is very low. Considering the nature of injuries suffered, I feel that it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- under this head as against Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.7,000/-towards extra nourishment and transport charges, which is also very low. The claimant took treatment for a period of 11 days as inpatient at R.K. Hospital, Namakkal. Considering the same, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- each under these heads as against Rs.7,000/-. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of earning during treatment period. The claimant took treatment for a period of 11 days and also suffered with fracture. The Tribunal has also came to the conclusion that the claimant cannot do the driving work as before. Considering the same, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards loss of earning during treatment period. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future medical expenses. Considering the documents Ex.P2-wound certificate, Ex.P9-disability certificate and Ex.P10-X-ray and also the evidence of doctor that the movement of the knee was restricted, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards future medical expense. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- TABLE Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.1,45,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition as against the compensation of Rs.2,89,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance company has submitted that already entire award amount has been deposited as per order of this Court dated 14.06.2007. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified award amount of Rs.1,45,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn. The appellant-Insurance company 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. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2007 is closed.