Judgment :- The appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 23.06.2006 made in MCOP No.1510 of 2004 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 28.06.2003 at about 3.15 p.m. While the first respondent/claimant was proceeding as pillion rider in Yamaha motor bike bearing registration No.TN-28-J-3888 from east to west direction near Vallipuram Bypass Road on the Namakkal to Karur Main Road at that time, a Van bearing registration No.TN-47-B-5059, which was coming from opposite direction and owned by the second respondent and insured with the appellant-Insurance company, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two wheeler. Due to which, the claimant had sustained fracture and crush injury. The claimant was immediately admitted in Aravind Hospital, Nakammal and later in National Hospital, Erode as in-patient. He claimed a sum of Rs.12,35,000/-but restricted his claim to Rs.10,00,000/- 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 Van? 2.Whether the appellant is liable to pay compensation to the claimant-first respondent? 3.Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation? If so what is the amount? 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.5,35,000/- 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.4,20,000/-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.4,20,000/-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 P18 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. Exs.P3 and P4 are the Motor Vehicle Inspectors reports.Ex.P5 is the charge sheet. Ex.P6 is the judgment. Ex.P7 is the rough sketch. Ex.P8 are the photographs. Ex.P9 are the medical receipts. Ex.P10 is the discharge summary. Ex.P11 is the driving licence of the claimant. Ex.P12 is the death certificate of the claimants father. Ex.P1`3 is the legal heir certificate. Exs.P14 and P15 are the sale deeds. Ex.P16 is the patta. Ex.P17 is the permanent disability. Ex.P18 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 31 years. PW1-claimant has deposed that he is an Agriculturist and also cattle broker earning a sum of Rs.8000/-per month. Ex.P2 is the wound certificate. After the accident, he was admitted in Aravind Hospital, Nakammal and later in National Hospital, Erode as in-patient. He had sustained severe bone fracture in right leg ankle and right foot crush injury and also right hand upper bone fracture. PW2-Dr. Kannapan, who examined the claimant, has assessed the disability at 60% and issued Ex.P17 disability certificate. After the accident, he was admitted in Aravind Hospital, Nakammal and later in National Hospital, Erode as in-patient. He had sustained severe bone fracture in right leg ankle and right foot crush injury and also right hand upper bone fracture. PW2-Dr. Kannapan, who examined the claimant, has assessed the disability at 60% and issued Ex.P17 disability certificate. PW-2 deposed in his evidence that while he examining the claimant, he found that the claimant underwent plastic surgery for the injuries sustained in his right hand and right leg and he cannot sit, stand and walk as before. Though the claimant has deposed that he is earning Rs.8000/- per month, no document was produced to substantiate his claim. Considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant is earning not less than Rs.150/-per day and due to 60% disability, his loss per day is at Rs.75/- and determined the monthly loss at Rs.2250/-and fixed the annual loss at Rs.28,000/- (Rs.2250/- x 12). The Tribunal considering the age of the claimant as 31 at the time of the accident, taken the multiplier as 15 and awarded a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- (Rs.28,000/- x 15) 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.P17-disability certificate, the disability is 60%. If Rs.2000/-is awarded per percentage of disability, the loss of income works out to Rs.1,20,000/-. There is no serious dispute regarding the same. Hence, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- under the head loss of income due to disability as against the sum of Rs.4,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.95,000/-towards medical expenses, which is an actual expenditure incurred by the claimant. Ex.P9 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. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.95,000/-towards medical expenses, which is an actual expenditure incurred by the claimant. Ex.P9 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.25,000/-under this head as against Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and transport charges, which is also very low. The claimant took treatment for a period one month in two hospitals. Considering the same, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges and Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment as against Rs.10,000/-award by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of earning during treatment period. The claimant took treatment for a period of one month and also suffered with fracture and underwent plastic surgery. Considering the same, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- 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.P17-disability certificate and Ex.P18-X-ray and also the evidence of doctor, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.15,000/-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.3,00,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition as against the compensation of Rs.5,35,000/- 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 21.07.2007. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified award amount of Rs.3,00,000/- 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.