Judgment :- Common Judgment: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the Award and Decree made in MCOP Nos. 675, 676, 677 of 2000 dated 15.03.2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Judge), Namakkal. These appeals arising out of a common accident, so they have been taken up together and a common judgment is passed. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- The claimants in all the three appeals were injured in a Motor Vehicle accident that took place on 17.03.2000 at about 3.00 a.m. All of them were travelling in a Van bearing Regn. No.TN-58-4389 from Manjeri on the National Highways 47 Main Road. At that time a Jeep bearing Regn. No.TN-43-Z-0227 owned by the 4th respondent herein and insured with the appellant – Insurance company came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the van, due to which, all the three claimants sustained fracture and also grievous injuries. In all the appeals, the claimants claimed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-as compensation. The appellant-Insurance Company resisted the claims. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- a) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep driver bearing Regn. No.TN-43-Z-0227 or not? b) Whether the claimants in the above three appeals are entitled to get any compensation or not? 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 Jeep and awarded the compensation of Rs.3,90,406/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition in respect of MCOP No.675 of 2000 (CMA No.639 of 2003), Rs.2,00,985/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition in respect of MCOP No.676 of 2000 (CMA No.640 of 2003) and Rs.2,02,138/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition in respect of MCOP No.677 of 2000 (CMA No.641 of 2003). The details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the three appeals are as under:- MCOP No.675 of 2000 (CMA No.639 of 2003):- Loss of income towards Permanent disability @ 65% Rs.2,49,600/- Pain and Suffering Rs. 30,000/- Extra Nourishment Rs. 4,000/-Medical Expenses Rs.1,16,806/- Total Rs.4,00,406/- There is an error in totalling. The details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the three appeals are as under:- MCOP No.675 of 2000 (CMA No.639 of 2003):- Loss of income towards Permanent disability @ 65% Rs.2,49,600/- Pain and Suffering Rs. 30,000/- Extra Nourishment Rs. 4,000/-Medical Expenses Rs.1,16,806/- Total Rs.4,00,406/- There is an error in totalling. The Tribunal awarded only Rs.3,90,406/- as against the correct amount of Rs.4,00,406/- MCOP No.676 of 2000 (CMA No.640 of 2003):- Loss of income towards Permanent disability @ 45% Rs.1,83,600/- Pain and Suffering Rs. 10,000/-Extra Nourishment Rs. 3,000/-Medical Expenses Rs. 4,385/- Total Rs.2,00,985/- MCOP No.677 of 2000 (CMA No.641 of 2003):- Loss of income towards Permanent disability @ 45% Rs.1,83,600/- Pain and Suffering Rs. 10,000/- Extra Nourishment Rs. 3,000/- Medical Expenses Rs. 5,538/- Total Rs.2,02,138/- Aggrieved by the awards, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeals. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal was wrong in holding the negligence on the part of the Jeep driver and hence the Tribunal was wrong in fixing the liability on the driver of the Jeep. The leaned counsel further submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant, without basis and justification, and that Tribunal ought not have adopted the Multiplier method. Hence the same has to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants – respondents 1 to 3 herein 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 claimants, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 were marked. On the side of the appellant/Insurance Company, no witness was examined and no documents were marked to support their claim. Witnesses P.W.1 is the claimant in CMA No.641 of 2003. P.W.2 is the claimant in CMA No.639 of 2003. P.W.3 is the claimant in CMA No.640 of 2003. P.W.4 is the Doctor Kathiravan. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of Wound Certificate issued to the claimant in MCOP No.677 of 2000 (CMA No.641 of 2003). Ex.P3 is the Medical Bill issued to the claimant in MCOP No.677 of 2000 (CMA No.641 of 2003). P.W.4 is the Doctor Kathiravan. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of Wound Certificate issued to the claimant in MCOP No.677 of 2000 (CMA No.641 of 2003). Ex.P3 is the Medical Bill issued to the claimant in MCOP No.677 of 2000 (CMA No.641 of 2003). Ex.P4 is the X-ray. Ex.P5 is the copy of Wound Certificate issued to the claimant in MCOP No.675 of 2000 (CMA No.639 of 2003). Ex.P6 is the Medical Bill issued to the claimant in MCOP No.675 of 2000 (CMA No.639 of 2003). Ex.P.7 is the X.ray. Ex.P8 is the copy of Wound Certificate issued to the claimant in MCOP No.676 of 2000 (CMA No.640 of 2003). Ex.P9 is the Medical Bill issued to the claimant in MCOP No.676 of 2000 (CMA No.640 of 2003). Ex.P10 is the X-ray. Ex.P11 is the copy of Disability Certificate issued to the claimant in MCOP No.677 of 2000 (CMA No.641 of 2003). Ex.P12 is the copy of Disability Certificate issued to the claimant in MCOP No.675 of 2000 (CMA No.639 of 2003). Ex.P13 is the copy of Disability Certificate issued to the claimant in MCOP No.676 of 2000 (CMA No.640 of 2003). In the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it is clearly stated that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep driver. After considering the above 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 Jeep and the findings of the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence. 6. MCOP No.675 of 2000 (CMA No.639 of 2003):- The claimant was 36 years old at the time of accident. He is a Salesman in Andavar Egg Company, Namakkal and has claimed that he was earning Rs.3,500/- per month. In his evidence he has clearly stated that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep driver. Due to the accident, he had sustained the following injuries:- "1. Swelling tenderness deformity left thigh fracture shaft upper third. 2. Contusion of tenderness left upper back – fracture left sacapula. 3. Swelling tenderness over left calvicle – fracture left forearm – fracture left clerical mid third comminuted. 4. Swelling tenderness left forearm – fracture left ulna. 5. Loss of incisor teeth. Swelling tenderness deformity left thigh fracture shaft upper third. 2. Contusion of tenderness left upper back – fracture left sacapula. 3. Swelling tenderness over left calvicle – fracture left forearm – fracture left clerical mid third comminuted. 4. Swelling tenderness left forearm – fracture left ulna. 5. Loss of incisor teeth. 6. Laceration over chin left leg thigh." After the accident, the claimant was admitted in the Kovai Medical Centre and Hospital Limited, Coimbatore for 19 days as inpatient. Though he has stated that he was earning Rs.3,500/-, to substantiate the same, no document was filed. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the view that he would be earning not less than Rs.2,000/- per month. P.W.4 is the Doctor, who examined the claimant. In his evidence he has stated that as a result of the accident the claimant is unable to walk and do his daily routine works. The claimant is permanently disabled as a result of the grievous injuries sustained by him in the accident and substantially, it affects his earning capacity and the Doctor assessed the permanent disability as 65% and issued Ex.P12 Disability Certificate. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has computed the loss of income due to permanent disability as follows: Rs.2,000/- X 12 X 16 X 65% = Rs.2,49,600/- The leaned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company, vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier method for computing the loss of income due to permanent disability. There is no proper evidence to state that the present injury affects the earning capacity of the claimant. After taking into consideration the evidence and facts and circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to compute the loss of income due to permanent disability on the basis of percentage method. Normally the Courts award Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. Considering the nature of injury, it would be reasonable to award Rs.2,000/-per percentage of disability and the claimant is entitled to the modified amount of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rs.2,000/- X 65) towards loss of income due to permanent disability as against Rs.2,49,600/-, awarded by the tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering. But no reason has been assigned by the Tribunal for awarding the said amount. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering. But no reason has been assigned by the Tribunal for awarding the said amount. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, I feel that it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.25,000/-under this head as against Rs.30,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,16,806/- towards medical expenses. Ex.P6 is the series of medical bills and Ex.P7 is the X-ray. It is an actual expenditure incurred by the claimant. Hence, the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards Extra nourishment. The amount awarded under this head is also very reasonable and the same is confirmed. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of income during treatment period. The claimant was admitted in Koval Medical Centre and Hospital Ltd., for 19 days. Further, he has not attended the work due to injuries for a period of more than five months. After taking into consideration of the same, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.15,000/-under this head. The Tribunal has also not awarded any amount towards Attendant Charges. Hence it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards Attendant Charges. The Tribunal has also not awarded any amount towards Transport expenses. It is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transport expenses, on the ground that the claimant took treatment in Kovai Medical Centre & Hospital Ltd., as inpatient as well as outpatient. The details of modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Loss of income towards Permanent disability @ 65% Rs.1,30,000/- Pain and Suffering Rs. 25,000/- Extra Nourishment Rs. 4,000/- Medical Expenses Rs.1,16,806/- Loss of income during treatment period Rs. 15,000/- Attendant Charges Rs. 5,000/- Transport Expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.3,00,806/- Rounded off to Rs.3,00,000/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-as against the compensation of Rs.4,00,406/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has fixed the rate of interest at 9% p.a from the date of petition. The accident has occurred on 17.03.2000. After taking into consideration the date of accident as well as the prevailing rate of interest, the same is modified to 7.5% p.a. instead of 9% p.a. 7. The Tribunal has fixed the rate of interest at 9% p.a from the date of petition. The accident has occurred on 17.03.2000. After taking into consideration the date of accident as well as the prevailing rate of interest, the same is modified to 7.5% p.a. instead of 9% p.a. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that already entire award amount has been deposited as awarded by the Tribunal as per the orders of this Court dated 30.04.2003. Therefore, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, on making proper application. The appellant-Insurance Company is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount, on making proper application. 8. MCOP No.676 of 2000 (CMA No.640 of 2003):- The claimant was 21 years old at the time of accident. He is a Driver in Andavar Egg Company, Namakkal and has claimed that he was earning Rs.4,500/- per month. In his evidence he has clearly stated that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep driver. Due to the accident, he had sustained the following injuries:- "1. Contusion right upper back x-ray fracture right scapula. 2. Multiple Small lacerations over the face. 3. Deep abrasions over the back and left shoulder." After the accident, the claimant was admitted in Kovai Medical Centre and Hospital Limited, Coimbatore. No document was filed that he was earning Rs.4,500/-. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the view that he would be earning not less than Rs.2,000/- per month. P.W.4 is the Doctor who examined the claimant. In his evidence he has stated that as a result of the accident the claimant is unable to walk and do his daily routine works. The Doctor assessed the permanent disability as 45% and issued Ex.P13 Disability Certificate. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has computed the loss of income due to permanent disability as follows: Rs.2,000/- X 12 X 17 X 45% = Rs.1,83,600/- The counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company, vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier method for computing the loss of income due to permanent disability. There is no proper evidence to state that the present injury affects the earning capacity of the claimant. There is no proper evidence to state that the present injury affects the earning capacity of the claimant. After taking into consideration the evidence and facts and circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to compute the loss of income due to permanent disability on the basis of percentage method. Normally the Courts award Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. Considering the nature of injury, it would be reasonable to award Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability and the claimant is entitled to the modified amount of Rs.90,000/- (Rs.2,000/- X 45) towards loss of income due to permanent disability as against Rs.1,83,600/- awarded by the Tribunal . The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. The amount awarded under this head is just and reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,385/- towards medical expenses. Ex.P9 is the series of medical bills and Ex.P10 is the X-ray. It is an actual expenditure incurred by the claimant. Hence, the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards Extra nourishment. The amount awarded under this head is also very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Loss of income towards Permanent disability @ 45% Rs. 90,000/- Pain and Suffering Rs. 10,000/- Extra Nourishment Rs. 3,000/- Medical Expenses Rs. 4,385/- Total Rs.1,07,385/- Rounded off to Rs.1,07,500/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.1,07,500/- as against the compensation of Rs.2,00,985/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has fixed the rate of interest at 9% p.a from the date of petition. The accident has occurred on 17.03.2000. After taking into consideration the date of accident as well as the prevailing rate of interest, the same is modified to 7.5% p.a. instead of 9% p.a. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that already entire award amount has been deposited as awarded by the Tribunal as per the orders of this Court dated 30.04.2003. Therefore, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified compensation i.e. a sum of Rs.1,07,500/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, on making proper application. Therefore, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified compensation i.e. a sum of Rs.1,07,500/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, on making proper application. The appellant-Insurance Company is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount, on making proper application. 10. MCOP No.677 of 2000 (CMA No.641 of 2003):- The claimant was 24 years old at the time of accident. He is a Cleaner in Andavar Egg Company, Namakkal and has claimed that he was earning Rs.3,500/- per month. In his evidence he has clearly stated that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep driver. Due to the accident, he had sustained the following injuries:- "1. Minor Head Injury (7 brain – No cerebral injury) 2. Swelling right side the face enchymosis right eye C7 fracture right Zygometic arch and lateral wall of right orbit. 3. Two teeth crown fracture. 4. Lacerated wound 2cm x ½ cm, right forehead." After the accident, the claimant was admitted in Kovai Medical Centre and Hospital Limited, Coimbatore. No document was filed that he was earning Rs.3,500/-. Therefore, Tribunal was of the view that he would be earning not less than Rs.2,000/- per month. P.W.4 is the Doctor who examined the claimant. In his evidence he has stated as a result of the accident the claimant is unable to walk and do his daily routine works. The Doctor assessed the permanent disability as 45% and issued Ex.P11 Disability Certificate. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has computed the loss of income due to permanent disability as follows: Rs.2,000/- X 12 X 17 X 45% = Rs.1,83,600/- The 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 due to permanent disability. There is no proper evidence to state that the present injury affects the earning capacity of the claimant. After taking into consideration the evidence and facts and circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to compute the loss of income due to permanent disability on the basis of percentage method. Normally the Courts award Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/-per percentage of disability. There is no proper evidence to state that the present injury affects the earning capacity of the claimant. After taking into consideration the evidence and facts and circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to compute the loss of income due to permanent disability on the basis of percentage method. Normally the Courts award Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/-per percentage of disability. Considering the nature of injury, it would be reasonable to award Rs.2,000/-per percentage of disability and the claimant is entitled to the modified amount of Rs.90,000/- (Rs.2,000/- X 45) as against the award of Tribunal Rs.1,83,600/-towards loss of income due to permanent disability. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards pain and suffering. The amount awarded under this head is just and reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,538/-towards medical expenses. Ex.P3 is the series of medical bills and Ex.P4 is the X-ray. It is an actual expenditure incurred by the claimant. Hence, the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards Extra nourishment. The amount awarded under this head is also very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Loss of income towards Permanent disability @ 45% Rs. 90,000/- Pain and Suffering Rs. 10,000/- Extra Nourishment Rs. 3,000/- Medical Expenses Rs. 5,538/- Total Rs.1,08,538/- Rounded off to Rs.1,08,500/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.1,08,500/-as against the compensation of Rs.2,02,138/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has fixed the rate of interest at 9% p.a from the date of petition. The accident has occurred on 17.03.2000. After taking into consideration the date of accident as well as the prevailing rate of interest, the same is modified to 7.5% p.a. instead of 9% p.a. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that already entire award amount has been deposited as awarded by the Tribunal as per the orders of this Court dated 30.04.2003. Therefore, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified compensation i.e. a sum of Rs.1,08,500/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, on making proper application. The appellant-Insurance Company is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount, on making proper application. 12. Therefore, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified compensation i.e. a sum of Rs.1,08,500/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, on making proper application. The appellant-Insurance Company is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount, on making proper application. 12. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of with the above modification. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.