Judgment :- The appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company-appellant against the Judgment and Decree in M.C.O.P.No.246 of 2006, dated 30.04.2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Gobichettipalayam. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 29.03.2006 at about 09.15 hrs., the claimant was walking on Gobi Athani main road near the house of A.T.Arumugam from south to north direction on the extreme left side of the road. At that time, the second respondent/owner of the motor cycle was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-36-J-3915 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in Seethalakshmi Hospital, Gobichettipalayam. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-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 the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle rider or not? 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 riding of the rider of the motorcycle and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,90,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of income due to disability Rs.1,26,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 39,032/- Total... Rs.1,90,032/- (The award amount rounded of Rs.1,90,000/-) Aggrieved by that award, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company 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 further he contended that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier method and 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. 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, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is one Dr.Thambiraj. Ex.P.1 is the attested copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P.2 is the attested copy of the wound certificate. Ex.P.3 is the attested copy of the Motor Vehicles Inspectors Report. Ex.P.4 is the attested copy of the Observer Magazar. Ex.P.5 is the attested copy of the rough sketch. Ex.P.6 is the attested copy of the charge sheet. Ex.P.7 is the discharge summary issued by the Seethalakshmi Hospital, Gopichattipalayam. Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.10 are the series of medical bills. Ex.P.11 is the receipt of car rental. Ex.P.12 is the scanned films. Ex.P.13 is the disability certificate. Ex.P.14 is the expenditure ledger. Ex.P.15 is the X-ray. On the side of the appellant-R.Ws.1 to R.Ws.3 were examined and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked to support their claim. R.W.1 is one Mr. Arulmurugan, who is the owner of the Insurance Company. R.W.2 is one Mr. Kandhasamy who is the pillion rider of the vehicle. R.W.3 is one Mr. Senthilkumar who is the insurer. Ex.R.1 is the LLR license. Ex.R.2 is the motorcycle policy. Ex.R.3 is the driving license of the R.W.2. 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 riding of the rider of the motorcycle and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 32 years. She is a worker in Spinning Mill and earning a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month. She is PW1 and it is stated that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle. Due to the accident, she sustained the following injuries; 1. Grievous injury on left leg. 2. Grievous injury on the head. 3. Injury on left hand, shoulder. 4. Injury on the chest and injuries all over the body. Due to the accident, she sustained the following injuries; 1. Grievous injury on left leg. 2. Grievous injury on the head. 3. Injury on left hand, shoulder. 4. Injury on the chest and injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, she was taken to Seethalakshmi Hospital, Gobichettipalayam. The rider of the motorcycle charge sheeted for offences under sections 279 & 338 of IPC in Cr.No.73/2006 by Appakudal Police Station. P.W.2 is one Dr.Thambiraj who examined the claimant and in his evidence, he stated that the claimant sustained following injuries; 1. Left leg fracture and also grievous injuries. 2. There is a grievous injuries near about 2, 3cm in the left leg with pain. 3. There is a fracture near about 2, 3cm in the right leg. Further, he stated that there is a plate screw was implanted in the left leg of the injured. Due to the same, she is unable to walk, sit and stand substantially and not able to do any work as before. The Doctor assessed the disability of 40%. Ex.P.13 is the disability certificate. Even though, there is no proper evidence that the claimant earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month, the Tribunal was the view that the claimant is certainly earning not less than Rs.125/- per day and arrived the monthly income at Rs.3,750/-. Taking into consideration of the disability of 40%, the Tribunal arrived the loss of income per month at Rs.1,500/- (Rs.3500 x 40%) and determined the annual loss of income at Rs.18,000/- (Rs.1500 x 12). After taking into consideration of the age of the deceased at 32 years, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 7 and arrived the loss of income due to disability as follows; Rs.18,000 x 7 = Rs.1,26,000 Therefore, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,26,000/-towards loss of income due to disability. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not have adopted the multiplier method for computing the loss of income and the Tribunal ought to have adopted the percentage method in computing the loss of income. Normally the Courts used to award Rs.1000/- to 2000/- for each percentage of disability. After considering the nature of the injury and also evidence of the Doctor and Ex.P.13(disability certificate), it is appropriate to award a sum of Rs.2,000/- for each percentage of disability. Normally the Courts used to award Rs.1000/- to 2000/- for each percentage of disability. After considering the nature of the injury and also evidence of the Doctor and Ex.P.13(disability certificate), it is appropriate to award a sum of Rs.2,000/- for each percentage of disability. If we adopted Rs.2,000/-for each percentage of disability, the loss of income works out as follows; Rs.2000 x 40% = Rs.80,000/-Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.80,000/-towards loss of income due to disability as against Rs.1,26,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering. After considering the nature of the injury and the Doctors evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards pain and suffering, which is very reasonable and the same is hereby confirmed. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards extra nourishment. After taking into consideration that the claimant was in the hospital for a period of 8 days and she was taking rest for a period of two moths, it is just, fair and reasonable award amount and the same is hereby confirmed. Further, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.39,032/- towards medical expenses. Ex.P.8 to 11 are the bills for the medical and transport expenses. It is actual expenditure. After considering the above exhibits, the Tribunal correctly awarded a sum of Rs.39,032/-towards medical expenses, which is based valid material and evidence and therefore, the same is hereby confirmed. The Tribunal has not awarded towards loss of income during the treatment period. The claimant was in the hospital for 8 days as inpatient and took rest for a period of two months. After considering the above, it is appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of income during the treatment period. Also, the Tribunal has not awarded towards transport to hospital. The claimant was taken treatment in Sethalakshmi Hospital, Gobichettipalayam. Therefore, it is appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards transport to hospital. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded towards future medical expenses. P.W.2 is one Dr.Thambiraj and in his evidence, he stated that the claimant needed one more surgery to remove the plate implanted earlier in the left leg and it has to incur an expenditure of Rs.20,000/-. After considering the evidence of the Doctor, it is just, fair and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards future medical expenses. P.W.2 is one Dr.Thambiraj and in his evidence, he stated that the claimant needed one more surgery to remove the plate implanted earlier in the left leg and it has to incur an expenditure of Rs.20,000/-. After considering the evidence of the Doctor, it is just, fair and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards future medical expenses. Further, the Tribunal also awarded the interest rate at 7.5%, which is very reasonable and the same is hereby confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Loss of income due to disability Rs. 80,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 39,032/- Loss of income during treatment period Rs. 5,000/- Transport to hospital Rs. 5,000/- Future medical expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total... Rs.1,69,032/- (The award amount rounded of Rs.1,69,000/-) Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.1,69,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition as against the compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified compensation of Rs.1,69,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition within six weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same on making proper application. 8. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.