Judgment :- The appeal is preferred by the appellant-Transport Corporation against the award dated 02.09.2006 made in MCOP No.802 of 2005 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge) Krishnagiri. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The respondent/claimant met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 112. 2004 at about 07.30 a.m. The respondent/claimant was travelling in the Motor Cycle bearing registration No.TN-27-E-2005 from Hosur to Krishnagiri N.H.Road near Bangalore Junction Road. At that time the bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation bearing registration No.TN-29-N-1363, which came in an opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against said vehicle, due to which, the claimant fell down and had sustained head injuries and fractures over frontal and on both sides of pariental and temporal regions. The claimant was immediately admitted in Government Hospital, Hosur as an inpatient. After taking initial treatment the claimant was referred to NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore. He claimed a sum of Rs.9,00,000/-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? 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.3,82,100/-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 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. 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 was Pws 1 to 3 were examined and the documents Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. On the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation RW1-S.Saffiullah was examined and no document was marked to support their claim. Exs.C1 to C3 were marked as Court documents. The claimant himself was examined as PW1, PW2 is the employer of the Injured and P.W.3 is Dr.Shankar. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of the wound certificate. Ex.P3 is the Case summary and discharge record issued by Manipal Hospital, Bangalore. Exs.P4 to P5 are medical bills. Ex.P6 is a copy of report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector. Ex.P7 A copy of form of certificate of Registration of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 29-N-1363. Ex.P8 is a copy of Driving Licence of the driver of the bus. Ex.P9 is a copy of Driving Licence of the claimant. Ex.P10 are Travelling Bills for Rs.6575/-. Ex.P11 are the C.T.Scan receipts for Rs.1500/-. Ex.P12 is the Salary certificate of the petitioner. Ex.C1 is the disability Certificate issued by PW3, Ex.C2 is the C.T.Scan Report issued by PW3 and Ex.C3 is C.T.Scan. 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 bus and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 25 years . He is a Manager in Javeed Blue Metals, Hosur and earning Rs.4500/- per month. Due to the accident he sustained following injuries: “(i) Right fronto temporo parietal acute subdural heameatoma; (ii) Right fronto temporal contusion ; (iii) Sub arachucid hemohage; (iv) Diffused; (v) Left petrous temperal bone fracture; (vi) Left parietor occipital none fracture (vii) Delayed left UMN facial palsy". He is a Manager in Javeed Blue Metals, Hosur and earning Rs.4500/- per month. Due to the accident he sustained following injuries: “(i) Right fronto temporo parietal acute subdural heameatoma; (ii) Right fronto temporal contusion ; (iii) Sub arachucid hemohage; (iv) Diffused; (v) Left petrous temperal bone fracture; (vi) Left parietor occipital none fracture (vii) Delayed left UMN facial palsy". The driver of the bus also charge sheeted under 279 and 338 of I.P.C. in Crime No.275 of 2004 of Traffic Investigation Wing, Hosur ,PW1-claimant has deposed that immediately after the accident, he took treatment at Government Hospital, Hosur and later he took treatment at NIMHANS hospital, Hosur and further he took treatment to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore as in-patient for about 3 weeks. PW3- the Doctor has deposed that he examined the claimant and issued Ex.C1 Disability Certificate, in which, he assessed the disability to the extent of 40%. It is clear from the oral and documentary evidence that the claimant had undergone surgery for the head injuries. Ex.P3 is the discharge summary. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has fixed the salary of the claimant at Rs.2000/- per month and annual Income works out Rs.24,000/-. After taking into consideration the age of the claimant as 25, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 17 and also considering the disability at 40% the Tribunal arrived at the loss of income at Rs.1,63,200/- (Rs.24000 x 17 = Rs.4,08,000x40/100 = Rs.1,63,200/-) . The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation vehemently contended that the amount awarded under this head is on the higher side and the Tribunal wrongly adopted the multiplier method in the case of injury. Normally the Courts award Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel it is just and proper to award Rs.2000/- for 1% disability and award towards permanent disability would be Rs.80,000/- (2000 X 40) as against award amount of Rs.1,63,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.12000/- towards loss of income during treatment period of six months, which I feel is very low. Considering the nature of injuries suffered, I feel that it would be appropriate to award Rs.18000/- (3000 x 6) under this head instead of Rs.12000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.12000/- towards loss of income during treatment period of six months, which I feel is very low. Considering the nature of injuries suffered, I feel that it would be appropriate to award Rs.18000/- (3000 x 6) under this head instead of Rs.12000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries and the period of treatment undergone by the claimant three hospitals, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head Transport charges at Rs.5000/-, is reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,900/- towards medical expenses, which is an actual expenditure incurred by the claimant and based on Exs.P4 & P5. Hence, the amount awarded under this head is also confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- towards extra nourishment, which I feel is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has also 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 awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of future earning power, which I feel that the claimant is not entitled to since already under the head loss of income a sum of Rs.18,000/- was awarded. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6000/- towards attendant charges, which I feel is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- TABLE Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.2,84,900/- as against the compensation of Rs.3,82,100/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has fixed the rate of interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of petition which is also very reasonable and the same is confirmed. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation has submitted that already a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- with proportionate interest has been deposited as per order of this Court dated 25.06.2007. The appellant – Transport Corporation is directed to deposit a balance amount Rs.34,900/- with proportionate interest within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified compensation amount of Rs.2,84,900/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition after adjusting the amount if any, already withdrawn. 8. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified compensation amount of Rs.2,84,900/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition after adjusting the amount if any, already withdrawn. 8. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed.