Judgment :- The appeal is preferred by the appellant-Transport Corporation against the award dated 31.03.2006 made in MCOP No.76 of 2003 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 011. 2002 at about 17.30 hours, when the claimant was passing through E.C.R road from west to east after offering prayer at Pillaiyar Koil, a vehicle (stage carrier) bearing Regn.No.TN 32 N 1341 belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation, which driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. Due to the same, the claimant had sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in Government General Hospital, Pondicherry as inpatient and discharged on 111. 2002. Thereafter, he was admitted in PIMS Hospital, Kanagachettikulam for better treatment. He claimed a sum of Rs.11,80,000/-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 by the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled for the compensation? 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 vehicle belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,00,800/- 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-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 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. 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 P19 were marked. On the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation one Balakrishnan, driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked to support their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. PW2 is the Doctor Balachandran. Ex.P1 is the photo copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the photo copy of the RC book. Ex.P3 is the photo copy of the Permit. Ex.P4 is the photocopy of the driving licence of the first respondent. Ex.P5 is the photo copy of the Discharge Slip. Ex.P6 is the photo copy of the wound certificate. Ex.P7 is the photo copy of the Accident Inspection Report. Ex.P8 is the Doctors Representation. Ex.P9 is the O.P.D. Slip of Dental College. Exs.P10 and P12 are the O.P.D. Slip of General Hospital. Ex.P11 is the Prescription slip of Primary Health Centre. Ex.P14 is the prescription of Dr. Krishnakumar. Exs.P15 and P16 are the prescriptions of Dr.Balachander. Ex.P17 is the Disability certificate issued by P.W.2. Ex.P18 is M.L.C. case paper. Ex.P19 is O.P.D. Slip. 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 appellant-Transport Corporation. The said finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 40 years. He is a Fisherman. Due to the accident, he sustained following injuries: "Grievous injuries on the left hip region; the back; the head; the ear lobe; the face; loss of three front teeth with bleeding contusion and abrasion all over the body with multiple injuries." Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in Government General Hospital, Pondicherry as in patient and discharged on 111. 2002. Later he took treatment at Primary Health Centre, Kalapet and Mahatma Gandhi Dental College and Hospital. Ex.P6 is the wound certificate, in which, the age of injured was mentioned as 40 years. 2002. Later he took treatment at Primary Health Centre, Kalapet and Mahatma Gandhi Dental College and Hospital. Ex.P6 is the wound certificate, in which, the age of injured was mentioned as 40 years. The Tribunal, considering Ex.P6-wound certificate, has taken the age of the claimant at the time of the accident was 40 years. PW1-the claimant deposed that he was earning Rs.500/- per day. But no document was filed by him to prove the same. PW2-Doctor Balachandran, who examined the claimant, has issued Ex.P17-Disability Certificate on 13.07.2004. He assessed the disability at 42%. He further deposed that while examining the claimant he found that three tooths were missing and he could not open his mouth as before and cannot chew the food. But the Tribunal has taken into consideration only 20% disability and has fixed the monthly income at Rs.2,000/- per month and determined the annual income at Rs.24,000/-. Taking into consideration that the age of the injured was 40 years at the time of the accident, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 16 and determined the loss of income due to permanent disability of 20% was at Rs.76,800/- (Rs.24,000 x 16 x 20/100). The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal was wrong in adopting multiplier method for computing loss of income due to disability in the case of injury and the amount awarded under this head is very excessive. Normally the Courts used to award Rs.1000/-to 2000/- per percentage of disability. Taking into consideration the disability sustained, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.2000/-per percentage of disability and the amount towards loss of income due to 20% disability works out to Rs.40,000/-(Rs.20,000/- x 20%) as against a sum of Rs.76,800/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards pain and suffering and mental agony. After taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained, 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.2000 towards transport charges. The claimant was admitted in Government General Hospital, Pondicherry from 011. 2002 to 111. 2002 and later at Primary Health Centre, Kalapet and Mahatma Gandhi Dental College and Hospital. Considering the same, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-under this head as against Rs.2,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2000 towards transport charges. The claimant was admitted in Government General Hospital, Pondicherry from 011. 2002 to 111. 2002 and later at Primary Health Centre, Kalapet and Mahatma Gandhi Dental College and Hospital. Considering the same, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-under this head as against Rs.2,000/-. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards extra nourishment. Considering the fact that the claimant took treatment at three hospitals, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards extra nourishment. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/-towards loss of income during treatment period. Considering Exs.P9, P10, P12 and P19-OPD slips and Exs.P11, P14 to P16prescriptions issued by doctors, I feel that the Tribunal is correct in awarding Rs.12,000/- (Rs.2000/-p.m x 6 months) towards loss of income during treatment period and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has fixed the rate of interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of petition, which I feel is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. 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.72,000/-as against the compensation of Rs.1,00,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. 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 21.07.2007. Therefore, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified award amount of Rs.72,000/- 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.