Judgment :- C.M.A.No.1931 OF 2003 is preferred by the appellant-Transport Corporation against the award dated 211. 2002 made in MACTOP No.251 of 2000 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional Sub Court) Villupuram. 2. Cross Objection No.40 of 2009 is filed by the claimant against the award dated 211. 2002 made in MACTOP No.251 of 2000 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional Sub Court), Villupuram. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The claimant was injured in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 18.01.2000 at about 8.40 a.m. The claimant was travelling as a passenger in a bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation bearing Registration Number TN-32-N-0727. When the bus was nearing Pillaiyar Koil bus stop on Chennai Trichy G.S.T. Road, the claimant tried to get down from the bus. At that time the driver of the bus suddenly moved the same with great speed and negligent manner and due to which, the claimant fell down and had sustained grievous injuries. The claimant was immediately admitted in Government Hospital, Villupuram and later transferred to Pondichery Gipmer Hospital and then, on the same day he was admitted in K.H.M.Hospital (Private), Chennai. He claimed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- 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 or not? 2. What is the compensation the claimant is entitled to? If so, what is the amount?" After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,49,600/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of disability Rs. 65,000/-Loss of Income Rs.1,80,000/- Pain and Sufferings Rs. 10,000/- Transport and Nutrition Rs. 10,000/- Medical Expenses Rs. 84,600/- Total... Rs.3,49,600/- Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Transport Corporation as well as the claimant have filed the appeal and cross objection. 4. 65,000/-Loss of Income Rs.1,80,000/- Pain and Sufferings Rs. 10,000/- Transport and Nutrition Rs. 10,000/- Medical Expenses Rs. 84,600/- Total... Rs.3,49,600/- Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Transport Corporation as well as the claimant have filed the appeal and cross objection. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation questioned only quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification and the Tribunal ought not to have awarded Rs.1,80,000/-towards loss of earning capacity, when a sum of Rs.65,000/- was already awarded towards partial permanent disability and that therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant, who is the Cross Objector in Cross Objection No.40 of 2009, submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation as claimed by the claimant and the amount awarded under various heads is very low and the Tribunal has not followed the principles of assessment before passing the award. Hence, it is a fit case for enhancing the compensation. 6. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P24 were marked. On the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation one Mr. Thirugnanam, who is the driver of the bus, was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked to substantiate their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. PW2 is Harikrishnan, Taxi Driver, who took the injured to the hospitals. PW.3 is Doctor Ravindhar, Assistant Medical Officer, Ayanavaram. Ex.P1 is First Information Report. Exs.P2 is the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report. Ex.P3 is the Wound Certificate issued by K.H.M.Hospital. Ex.P4 is the Wound Certificate. Ex.P5 is the copy of the permit. Ex.P6 is the certificate issued by Tyre Retreating Company. Ex.P7 is the series of medical bills. Exs.P8 to P23 are the Taxi receipts. Ex.P24 is the Permanent disability certificate. 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 bus and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 7. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 40 years. 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 bus and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 7. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 40 years. PW1-the claimant has deposed in his evidence that he is the proprietor of Tyre Retreating Company and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. In his evidence he stated that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation bus and his right foot was crushed and had sustained multiple injuries. Immediately he was admitted in Government Hospital, Villupuram and later in Gipmer Hospital, Pondicherry and K.H.M. Hospital Chennai. The driver of the bus was charge sheeted under sections 279 and 338 of I.P.C., in Crime No.66 of 2000 of West Police Station, Villupuram. Ex.P4 is the Wound Certificate issued by the Villupuram Government Hospital. Ex.P3 is Wound Certificate, in which, it is stated that the claimants right leg was crushed and amputated. PW3 is the Assistant Medical Officer in Government Hospital, Ayanavaram. He examined the injured and determined the disability at 65%. Ex.P24 is the disability certificate. Though the claimant has deposed that he was earning Rs.15,000/-per month, he has not produced any document to prove the same. Therefore, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.1000/- and the Annual Income at Rs.12,000/-. After considering the age of the claimant at the time of accident was 40 years, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 15 and arrived at the loss of income at Rs.1,80,000/-(1000x12x15). The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the award amount towards loss of income due to disability is excessive and also multiplier method should not be adopted. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that because of the disability, the correct method should be adopted in this case is multiplier method. Because, the right leg of the claimant was amputated. It would certainly affect the earning capacity. Sl.No.17 of Part II of Schedule I of Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 reads as follows: "2. Amputation below middle thigh to (8.89 cms) below knee 60%" 8. In the case of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. Because, the right leg of the claimant was amputated. It would certainly affect the earning capacity. Sl.No.17 of Part II of Schedule I of Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 reads as follows: "2. Amputation below middle thigh to (8.89 cms) below knee 60%" 8. In the case of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. VELUCHAMY AND ANOTHER reported in 2005 (1) CTC 38 , wherein the Division Bench of this Court has formulated certain guidelines to be followed in the matter of adopting multiplier method, precisely in the case of permanent disability, which reads as follows. "11. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (a) In all case of injury or permanent disablement "multiplier method" cannot be mechanically applied to ascertain the future loss of income or earning power. (b) It depends upon various factors such as nature and extent of disablement, avocation of the injured and whether it would affect his employment or earning power, etc., and if so, to what extent? (c) (1) If there is categorical evidence that because of the injury and consequential disability, the injured lost his employment or avocation completely and has to be idle till the rest of his life, in that event loss of income or earning may be ascertained by applying "multiplier method" as provided under Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (2) Even if so there is no need to adopt the same period as that of fatal cases as provided under the schedule. If there is no amputation and if there is evidence to show that there is likelyhood of reduction or improvement in future years, lesser period may be adopted for ascertainment of loss of income. (d) Mainly it depends upon the avocation or profession or nature of employment being attended by the injured at the time of accident." 9. The Supreme Court in the case of A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. By its Chief Law Officer V. M. Pentaiah Chary, 2007 (2) TN MAC 152 (SC), held as follows: "13. We therefore, fail to visualise that in a case of this nature a claimant can be deprived of a reasonable amount of Compensation despite the fact that he has permanently lost his capacity to earn and remain dependent on other besides physical sufferance of such magnitude as to why the multiplier suggested by the parliament should not be accepted. 14. We therefore, fail to visualise that in a case of this nature a claimant can be deprived of a reasonable amount of Compensation despite the fact that he has permanently lost his capacity to earn and remain dependent on other besides physical sufferance of such magnitude as to why the multiplier suggested by the parliament should not be accepted. 14. We do not, however, intend to lay down a general law. We wish to point out that minimum Compensation payable in a case of this nature should be considered from the sufferings of disability undergone by the victim. We are not suggesting that in certain situations, the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule cannot and should not be altered but therefor there must exist strong circumstances." Taking note of the principles enunciated in the above judgments, I am of the view that the Tribunal is correct in adopting multiplier method. In the present case, the Tribunal has given a finding that the disability was affected 65% of the earning capacity. Therefore, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.65,000/-towards permanent disability. At the same time, the Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- towards loss of earning capacity by adopting the multiplier method. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded a sum of Rs.65,000/- towards permanent disability, when already a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- towards loss of earning capacity was awarded. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant also submitted that the Tribunal was awarded a very meagre amount towards loss of earning capacity when the claimant lost his right leg i.e., amputation of right leg. After considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- towards loss of earning and a sum of Rs.65,000/- towards 65% disability are combined together, which comes to Rs.2,45,000/-(Rs.1,80,000/-+ 65,000/-) and the same is calculated under one head i.e. loss of earning due to disability. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the injured at Rs.1000/-per month, which is very low and meagre. The claimant is the owner of the Tyre Retreading Company and claimed a sum of Rs.15,000/-per month. Even though, no proof has been produced, it is reasonable to fix the monthly salary of the claimant that he would have earned not less than Rs.3,000/-per month as per the Minimum Wages Act. The claimant is the owner of the Tyre Retreading Company and claimed a sum of Rs.15,000/-per month. Even though, no proof has been produced, it is reasonable to fix the monthly salary of the claimant that he would have earned not less than Rs.3,000/-per month as per the Minimum Wages Act. So, monthly Income is fixed at Rs.3000/- p.m. as against Rs.1000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation contended that 1/3rd amount should be deducted from the salary and relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Sunilkumar v. Ram Singh Gaud and Others, reported in 2008 (1) TN MAC 43 (SC). Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses from the salary is not applicable. In support of his submission the learned counsel relied upon the decision reported in 2009 (1) TNMAC 134 (SC) Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Ram Prasad Varma & Others & Others 2009 (1) TN MAC 134(SC) it has been held as follows: "18. Following the aforementioned precedents, we are of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is not necessary to interfere either with the application of multiplier of eight or non-deduction of 1/3rd from his net salary. However, what was the net salary of the respondent for the said purpose should have been determined. An employee when not in employment is not to pay his tax. Income tax payable from the salary, therefore, was required to be deducted." Following the principles enunciated in the above Judgement, there is no need to deduct 1/3rd towards personal expenses. It is clear that PW3 Doctor, who examined the claimant has issued Ex.P24-disability certificate and assessed the disability at 65%. Sl.No.17 of Part II of Schedule I of Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 reds as follows: "2. Amputation below middle thigh to (8.89 cms) below knee 60%" As per the Workmens Compensation Act, it would be reasonable to take the disability as 60%. After considering the age of the claimant as 40 years, the correct multiplier should be adopted in this case as per schedule is 15. Thus, the loss of income due to disability works out to Rs.3,24,000/-(3000 x 12 x 15 x 60/100) as against combined amount Rs.2,45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. After considering the age of the claimant as 40 years, the correct multiplier should be adopted in this case as per schedule is 15. Thus, the loss of income due to disability works out to Rs.3,24,000/-(3000 x 12 x 15 x 60/100) as against combined amount Rs.2,45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and sufferings, which is very low and meagre. After considering the nature of injuries i.e., the claimants right leg was amputated, I feel that it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards pain and sufferings as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards Transport and Nutrition, which is very reasonable and therefore, the same is confirmed. Further the Tribunal awarded Rs.84,600/- towards Medical expenses. It is an actual expenditure incurred by the claimant. Ex.P7 is the series of medical bills. Considering the same, I feel that the Tribunal is correct in awarding a sum of Rs.84,600/- towards medical expenses and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities. Taking into consideration the injuries sustained i.e. loss of his right leg, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- under this head. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Loss of Income Rs.3,24,000/- Pain and sufferings Rs. 20,000/- Transport and Nutrition Rs. 10,000/- Medical Bills Rs. 84,600/- Loss of amenities Rs. 10,000/- Total... Rs.4,48,600/- Less:Already awarded by the Tribunal Rs.3,49,600/- Enhanced compensation Rs. 99,000/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.99,000/-with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition. 10. The appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.99,000/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same on making proper application. 11. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and cross objection are disposed of. No costs.