Judgment :- This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/respondents against the judgment and decree passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.160 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Judge) at Dharmapuri, dated 28.04.2004 awarding a total compensation of Rs.2,80,480/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the appellants/respondents have preferred this appeal before this Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows; On 112. 1999, at about 08.30 hours, when the petitioner was proceeding on the extreme side of the road at imperial granite quarry at Krishnagiri to Chendarapally road, a tipper lorry bearing registration No. TSD 2379 belonging to the first respondent namely M/s.Gem Granites and insured with the second respondent, the Oriental Insurance Company, Limited, Salem, driven by its driver in reverse, without seeing and observing rules of the road, with high speed, driven rashly and negligently dashed against the petitioner. In the result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was taken to Government Hospital, Dharmapuri, wherein he was admitted as inpatient. The Police authority attached to the Gandhikuppam police station registered a criminal case in Crime No.357 of 1999 on an alleged offence under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. against the first respondent driver. The said vehicle was insured with the second respondent/Insurance Company. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and vigorously liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 4. Due to the said accident, the petitioner is unable to walk, stand and has urinal problem and also repeated bouts of chest pain. Hence, the petitioner has approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-with 12% interest per annum and costs. 5. The second respondent/Oriental Insurance Company Limited has filed a counter Statement and resisted the claim, but the second respondent has admitted that the first respondents vehicle bearing registration No. TSD 2379 was insured with them at the time of accident. The owner of the vehicle, has neither submitted any claim form nor informed them about the accident, which had taken place on 112. 1999. The owner of the vehicle, has neither submitted any claim form nor informed them about the accident, which had taken place on 112. 1999. The second respondent further alleged that they made investigation regarding the accident and found out that the accident had taken place while the petitioner was suddenly crossing the main road, without noticing the lorry which was coming behind him. So, the insurance company has denied the allegations of the petitioner against the driver of the lorry. Further, the petitioner has sustained only simple injuries in the said accident and no permanent disability has happened to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has to prove the age, occupation and monthly income by way of documentary evidence. Further, the insurance company has stated that the compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- claimed by the petitioner is on the higher side. 6. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Judge, Dharmapuri had framed two issues namely; 1) Whether the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondents vehicle? 2) If it is so, what is the quantum of compensation which is entitled to the petitioner? 7. The petitioner has been examined as PW1 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and on his side five document were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 namely 1) First Information Report, 2) Wound certificate of the petitioner, 3) Copy of insurance policy, 4) Medical report and 5) Disability certificate. On the side of the respondents, no one appeared and no documents were marked. 8. In order to prove negligence, the petitioner tendered evidence stating that the first respondents lorry, driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him. This was not opposed by the respondents before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Hence, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent. As such, the negligence of driver was proved. For proving the negligence, the petitioner has marked the first information report as Ex.P1. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal has come to a conclusion to award compensation on the basis of petitioners evidence and PW2 i.e. the Doctors evidence. 9. Regarding the injuries sustained by the petitioner, he has given evidence that his left hand and right leg bones were fractured and he also has recurring chest pain. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal has come to a conclusion to award compensation on the basis of petitioners evidence and PW2 i.e. the Doctors evidence. 9. Regarding the injuries sustained by the petitioner, he has given evidence that his left hand and right leg bones were fractured and he also has recurring chest pain. Further, he has injuries on his left leg palms and on his body. Due to this injury, the petitioner underwent treatment in the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri and subsequently in a private hospital also. To prove, the same, the petitioner has marked wound certificate. The wound certificate, reveals that the petitioner has sustained two simple injuries and one grievous injury. The petitioner also took treatment in the Salem Bone joint and Ortho neurology Centre from 112. 1999 to 31.01.2000, for which the petitioner marked a medical report as Ex.P4. 10. For assessing the disability and in support of medical evidence, one doctor, P.G.Elangovan was examined as PW2. He has stated in his evidence that due to the said Motor Accident, the petitioners right side shoulder bone and pelvic bone at the hip were fractured. This has not healed so far. Due to the compression of the right side shoulder joint, the movement of the right shoulder has been reduced by 20:. So, the petitioner is unable to do normal work as before. The doctor, after examining the petitioner, has given the disability certificate for the shoulder and hip bone fracture and had assessed disability at 40% as permanent disability. For body concerned disability, he has assessed it at 20%. Supporting the doctors evidence, Ex.P5, disability certificate has marked. 11. The learned counsel for the claimant/respondent herein cited a case which is reported in 2002 (2) Law Weekly, (The New India Assurance Company v. Kartheeswaran and another) in support of the petitioners case. The petitioner was a plumber at the time of accident. So, in the absence of any proof of income, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that his monthly income was Rs.3,000/-. On the basis of the wound certificate, the petitioners age was fixed at 19. 12. Considering the above aspects, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has adopted a multiplier as 16 and calculated award as per following formula;- Compensation = 16 X 36000 X 20/100 = 1,15,200/-for 20% disability. This is towards loss of earning. On the basis of the wound certificate, the petitioners age was fixed at 19. 12. Considering the above aspects, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has adopted a multiplier as 16 and calculated award as per following formula;- Compensation = 16 X 36000 X 20/100 = 1,15,200/-for 20% disability. This is towards loss of earning. Compensation awarded for continuance of disability and loss of amenities Rs.40000/- For pain and suffering Rs.40000/- For Transport expenses Rs.1000/-For nutrition Rs.5000/-For medical expenditure Rs.34,280 For mental agony Rs.20000/-For permanent disability Rs.25000/-For loss of earning Rs.115200/- 13. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has come to a conclusion, on the basis of the Insurance Policy which was marked as Ex.P3, that the vehicle involved in the said accident was insured with the second respondent/insurance company. As such, both the respondents are liable to pay the award amount either individually or jointly into the credit of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal within a period of two months. 14. The said award has been challenged by the appellants and the appellants counsel argued that the compensation of Rs.2,80,480/-was on the higher side and that it is not applicable to the facts of the case. The learned counsel further pointed out fixation of the income and age of the claimant as Rs.3000/-and 19 years respectively are without any acceptable evidence. The Tribunal has also adopted a multiplier of 16 for fixing the quantum of compensation and this multiplier fixed is incorrect. Further the learned counsel pointed out that Rs.25,000/-has been awarded towards permanent disability at 20% and also Rs.40,000/- has been awarded for continuance of disability and loss of amenities and this is an excessive amount. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in his judgment for awarding the compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation on the basis of the income, age, occupation, disability and nature of injuries. Hence, he prayed the Court to confirm the award. 16. For the foregoing reasons and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court opines that an award of Rs.2,80,480/-passed by the Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri in M.C.O.P.No.160 of 2000 dated 28.04.2004 is excessive and instead this Court awards a sum of Rs.2,40,480/-together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 16. For the foregoing reasons and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court opines that an award of Rs.2,80,480/-passed by the Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri in M.C.O.P.No.160 of 2000 dated 28.04.2004 is excessive and instead this Court awards a sum of Rs.2,40,480/-together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The compensation award awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of amenities is Rs.40,000/-. This was awarded on an extra head as already the Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- for pain and suffering. As such, the award under the head of amenities as Rs.40,000/- is erroneous. Hence, the Court has deducted Rs.40,000/-and awarded Rs.2,40,480/- (Rupees two lakhs forty thousand four hundred and eighty only) as compensation, which is equitable and fair. 17. Already, this Court permitted the claimant/respondent to withdraw half of the amount, by order dated 23.03.2005. Now, this Court directs the appellant/Insurance Company to deposit the balance compensation amount, out of the total compensation of Rs.2,40,480/- awarded by this Court, within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.160 of 2000 on the file of Sub Court, Dharmapuri with interest at the rate of 9% calculated from the date of claim petition till date of payment of this award. If the appellant/Insurance Company has deposited excessive payment, the same is permitted to be withdrawn by them in M.C.O.P.No.160 of 2000. 18. It is open to the respondent/claimant to receive the balance amount lying to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.160 of 2000 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Dharmapuri by filing necessary payment out petition in accordance with law. 19. Resultantly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed with the above terms and consequently, the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribnunal, Sub Court, Dharmapuri in M.C.O.P.No.160 of 2000 is modified. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.