Judgment :- The appeal is preferred by the Transport Corporation-appellant against the award and decree dated 03.03.2005 made in O.P.No.1894 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Sub-Court), Krishnagiri. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 29.06.2003 at about 10.30 hrs., the injured was proceeding in TVS Super XL vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-29-P-6782. At that time, a Hero Honda Splender Vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-29-P-6340 belonging to the second respondent herein and insured with the appellant Insurance Company came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the injured at Elumalayan Nagar, Lake bound bridge. Due to the same, he sustained fracture and grievous injuries in all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in Government Hospital, Kaveripattinam. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.16,20,000/- and later it restricted to Rs.5,00,000/-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 Hero Honda bike driver 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 Hero Honda Splender and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,05,000/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Permanent disability of 40% Rs.1,00,000/- Injuries Rs. 60,000/-Medical expenses Rs. 60,000/-Attendant charges Rs. 5,000/-Loss of income during treatment period Rs. 10,000/- Transport expenses Rs. 10,000/-Future medical expenses Rs. 25,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 60,000/-Loss of future earning power Rs. 65,000/- Total... Rs.3,95,000/- The total award amount is Rs.3,95,000/-only. But, the Tribunal was wrongly awarded a compensation of Rs.4,05,000/- instead of correct sum of Rs.3,95,000/-. Aggrieved by that award, the appellant/Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 3. 10,000/- Transport expenses Rs. 10,000/-Future medical expenses Rs. 25,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 60,000/-Loss of future earning power Rs. 65,000/- Total... Rs.3,95,000/- The total award amount is Rs.3,95,000/-only. But, the Tribunal was wrongly awarded a compensation of Rs.4,05,000/- instead of correct sum of Rs.3,95,000/-. Aggrieved by that award, the appellant/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 also awarded in various heads without giving reasons and further he contended that the interest of 9% is excessive and therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Inspite of the notice to the respondents, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is one Dr.Ashok kumar. 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 series of medical bills. Ex.P.4 is the attested copy of the Judgment. Ex.P.5 is the rental receipts of the car. Ex.P.6 is the lake lease. Ex.P.7 is the receipt of the fish bought. Ex.P.8 is the certificate of the Village Administrative Office. Ex.P.9 is the photo copy of the Insurance Policy. Ex.P.10 is the permanent disability. Ex.P.11 is the X-ray. On the side of the appellant-Insurance Company, no one was examined and no document was marked to support their claim. 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 Hero Honda Splender and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 45 years. He is an agriculturist and also fish and vegetable vendor and earning a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month. He is PW1 and in his evidence, he stated that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the Hero Honda Splender. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 45 years. He is an agriculturist and also fish and vegetable vendor and earning a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month. He is PW1 and in his evidence, he stated that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the Hero Honda Splender. Due to the same, he sustained the following injuries; 1.Open fracture of both bone at lower leg right. 2.Swelling right side of wrist bone 3 x 3. 3.Abrasion in left knee 3 x 3cm. 4.Abrasion of right knee 3 x 3cm 5.Abrasion at left elbow 6.Abrasion at left skin 3 x 3cm Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in Government Hospital, Kaveripattinam as inpatient and later he was taken treatment in a private hospital. The rider of the Hero Honda Splendor charge sheeted for offences under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC in Cr.No.794/2002 by Kaveripattinam Police Station. Further, it is stated that due to the accident, he is unable to walk, stand and to do any work as before. P.W.1 is the claimant and in his evidence, it is stated that he sustained fracture in the right leg and also surgery also done twice and three screw were implanted. P.W.2 is one Dr.Ashok Kumar and in his evidence, it is stated that he sustained fracture in the right leg and also there is a fracture in the lower right leg. Due to the same, he is unable to stand, sit and walk substantially and unable to do any work as before and he cannot drive any vehicle. The Doctor assessed the disability at 40%. Also, the claimant has to undergo one more surgery for removing the plate. Ex.P.10 is the permanent disability certificate. Ex.P.11 is the X-ray. Ex.P.2 is the wound certificate. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a consolidated sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent disability of 40%. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation vehemently contended that the Tribunal has passed excessive award amount towards permanent disability of 40% and ought to have adopted the percentage method for computing the loss due to permanent disability. Normally the Courts used to award Rs.1000/- to 2000/-for each percentage of disability. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation vehemently contended that the Tribunal has passed excessive award amount towards permanent disability of 40% and ought to have adopted the percentage method for computing the loss due to permanent disability. Normally the Courts used to award Rs.1000/- to 2000/-for each percentage of disability. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and documentary evidence, it is appropriate to award a sum of Rs.2,000/-for each percentage of disability. If we award Rs.2,000/-for each percentage of disability, the loss due to permanent disability of 40% works out Rs.80,000/-(40% x Rs.2000). Therefore, it is just, fair and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.80,000/-towards permanent disability of 40% as against Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also awarded further sum of Rs.60,000/- towards injuries. As the Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards loss due to disability, a further sum of Rs.60,000/- awarded towards injuries is unwarranted and the same is deleted. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/-towards medical expenses. Ex.P.3 is the series of medical expenses. It is an actual expenditure. Therefore, it is just, fair and reasonable award amount and the same is hereby confirmed. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges. The claimant has admitted in various hospitals. During the treatment period, someone would have assisted to him. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal towards attendant charges is reasonable and the same is hereby confirmed. Further, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income during the treatment period. After taking into consideration that the claimant has admitted in the Government Hospital, Kaveripattinam as inpatient and later he was taken treatment in the private hospital, the claimant would have lost the income during the treatment period. There is no dispute that the claimant was taking treatment for a period of three months. Therefore, it is appropriate to award a sum of Rs.30,000/-towards loss of income during the treatment period as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-towards future medical expenses, which is excessive. P.W.2-Doctor, in his evidence stated that the claimant needs one more suergery. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards future medical expenses as against a sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-towards future medical expenses, which is excessive. P.W.2-Doctor, in his evidence stated that the claimant needs one more suergery. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards future medical expenses as against a sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/-towards pain and suffering, which is excessive award amount. After taking into consideration of the nature of the injury, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards pain and suffering as against Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.65,000/- towards loss of earning power. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that when already compensation is awarded on the head of loss due to disability, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded a sum of Rs.65,000/-towards loss of earning power. He also relied upon A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Cholan Roadways Vs. Ahmed Thambi, reported in 2006 (4) CTC 433 , held that whenever compensation towards permanent disability is awarded, further amount towards loss of income should not be awarded. Applying the principle enunciated in the above Full Bench decision of this Court, the award of the Tribunal in respect of loss earning power at Rs.65,000/- is not in accordance with law and therefore, the same is set aside. The Tribunal has not awarded towards extra nourishment and transport. After taking into consideration of the nature of the injury and the treatment taken in various hospitals, it is appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards extra nourishment. Further, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards transport expenses. After taking into consideration of the fact that the claimant took treatment in various hospitals, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards transport expenses. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Permanent disability of 40% Rs. 80,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 60,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 5,000/- Loss of income during treatment period Rs. 30,000/- Future medical expenses Rs. 10,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Transport expenses Rs. 10,000/-Total... Rs.2,20,000/- ------------------ Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.2,20,000/-as against the compensation of Rs.3,95,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has fixed the rate of interest at 9% p.a from the date of petition. 30,000/- Future medical expenses Rs. 10,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Transport expenses Rs. 10,000/-Total... Rs.2,20,000/- ------------------ Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.2,20,000/-as against the compensation of Rs.3,95,000/-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 29.06.2003. During the said period, the prevailing rate of interest is at 7.5%. Hence, the rate of interest is modified to 7.5% instead of 9%. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation has submitted that already entire award amount has been deposited as per order of this Court dated 03.09.2007. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified award amount of Rs.2,20,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn. The appellant-Transport Corporation is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount on making proper application. 8. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.