Judgment :- 1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 02.12.2003, made in M.C.O.P.No.305 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,31,280/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/respondent has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 04.05.1997, when the petitioner was travelling as a passenger in the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN29 N0212, from Hosur to Perumalpalli and when the bus was nearing the Lingapuri lake bund, the driver of the said bus drove the bus at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and that while negotiating a curved road in its path, the driver was unable to control the vehicle even on application of sudden brake. Resultantly, the bus had fallen into a ditch, overturned and caused the accident. In the accident, the petitioner sustained severe injuries and was admitted into the Government Medical Hospital and wherein he was given treatment, subsequently he took treatment in a private hospital. 4. The petitioner has stated that as the accident had been caused by the driver of the respondents bus, the respondent is liable to pay him compensation. As such, the petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-from the respondent under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. The respondent, in his counter, has resisted the claim denying the averments in the claim regarding the age, income and occupation of the petitioner. The manner of accident, as alleged in the claim, has also not been admitted by the respondent. It has been stated that the driver of the respondents bus had driven the bus slowly. On seeing a buffalo suddenly crossing the road, the driver of the bus, in order to avoid dashing the bus against the buffalo and in order to avert an accident had applied sudden brakes. It has been submitted that the bus driver could not be held at fault for the accident and has sought dismissal of the claim petition. 6. On seeing a buffalo suddenly crossing the road, the driver of the bus, in order to avoid dashing the bus against the buffalo and in order to avert an accident had applied sudden brakes. It has been submitted that the bus driver could not be held at fault for the accident and has sought dismissal of the claim petition. 6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for the consideration namely: (i) Who is to be held responsible for the accident? (ii) Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation as prayed for? (iii)To what other relief is the petitioner entitled to get? 7. On the petitioner side two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and four documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P4. On the respondents side one witness was examined and no documents were marked. 8. The petitioner was examined as PW1. The PW1 in his evidence deposed that on 04.05.1997, when he was travelling as a passenger in the respondents town bus, the driver of the bus had driven the bus at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, while negotiating a curved road near the Lingapuram lake bund and as a result of this the bus had overturned and caused the accident. He had deposed that due to the accident, he had sustained fracture in his left hand bone; that he had undergone treatment at Hosur Government Hospital as inpatient, for a period of four days. In support of his contention, the PW1 has marked Ex.P1, the FIR; Ex.P2, the copy of Accident Register; Ex.P3, the Wound Certificate. Dr.Ashok Kumar, who had given medical treatment to the petitioner and assessed the disability of the PW1 was examined as PW2 and he gave evidence regarding the treatment given to PW1 and in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P4, the Disability Certificate. 9. The driver of the respondents bus was examined as RW1. Dr.Ashok Kumar, who had given medical treatment to the petitioner and assessed the disability of the PW1 was examined as PW2 and he gave evidence regarding the treatment given to PW1 and in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P4, the Disability Certificate. 9. The driver of the respondents bus was examined as RW1. The RW1 has deposed in his evidence that on the date of accident, while he was driving the bus near Karusanapalli lake, a herd of goats had suddenly crossed the road in front of the bus and that in order to avoid dashing against the goats, he had applied sudden brakes; that due to this application of brakes, the bus deviated from its path and had fallen into a pit on the right side of the road and caused the accident. 10. The Tribunal on scrutiny of evidence of the PW1 and the FIR and also considering that the respondents evidence had not denied the accident, held that the accident had been caused due to the fault of the respondents bus driver and accordingly held that the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 11. The petitioner had stated in his evidence that due to the accident, he had sustained fracture of the bone in his left hand and injuries on his left hip and that he had taken treatment at Hosur Government Hospital and had spent a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards medical expenses. On scrutiny of Ex.P3, the Wound Certificate, it is seen that the petitioner has sustained two injuries and that out of this one injury was grievious and the other one was a simple injury. The PW2, the Doctor, in his evidence deposed that he had carried out a medical examination of the petitioner on 18.08.2003 and had found that the two of the fractured bones in the left fore arm has joined in a curved and crooked manner and that due to this the muscles around these portions had hardened. He had deposed that due to the above defect, the petitioner would have difficulty in doing his day to day work and had therefore stated that the petitioner has sustained 45% disability on this count and in support of his evidence, he has marked Ex.P4, the Disability Certificate. 12. He had deposed that due to the above defect, the petitioner would have difficulty in doing his day to day work and had therefore stated that the petitioner has sustained 45% disability on this count and in support of his evidence, he has marked Ex.P4, the Disability Certificate. 12. Though the petitioner has stated that he was aged about 50 years and was a vegetable vendor earning a sum of Rs.3,000/-before the accident, he had not produced any oral or documentary evidence to back his claim. As such, the Tribunal considering that the petitioner could have earned a sum of Rs.70/-per day computed his monthly income as Rs.2,100/- and assessed his yearly income as Rs.25,200/-. Further, on scrutiny of the Wound Certificate, it is seen that the petitioners age has been stated as 50 years. Hence, the Tribunal, on considering that the age of the petitioner was 50 years at the time of accident, adopted a multiplier of 13 as was relevant under the amended Motor Vehicles Act and assessed the total loss of income for 100% disability as Rs.25,200/- X 13 = Rs.3,27,600/-. The Tribunal, on taking the disability sustained by the petitioner as only 30% assessed the total loss of income of the petitioner as 30/100 X Rs.3,27,600/- = Rs.98,280/- and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs.98,280/-as compensation to the petitioner under the head of loss of comforts of life and loss of future income due to the disability. The Tribunal further awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the head of grievious injury; Rs.5,000/-under the head of pain and suffering; Rs.3,000/-under the head of nutrition. In total, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,31,280/- to the petitioner, which was inclusive of interim award received by the petitioner, if any, and directed the respondent to deposit the above said award together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.305 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri, within a period of two months from the date of its order. The said award, after deposit being made into the Court, was to be invested in a nationalised bank, as fixed deposit for a period of three years and the petitioner was permitted to receive the interest on such deposit once in six months, directly from the bank. The Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.5,625/- and the respondent was directed to pay the cost of Rs.6,312/-to the petitioner. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal had erred in holding that the driver of the appellants bus was rash and negligent and was responsible for the accident. It has also been contended that the Tribunal had erred in fixing the age of the petitioner as 50 years, without any evidence. It was also pointed out that the Tribunal had erred in granting a sum of Rs.25,000/-for grievious injury. As such, it has been contended that the decision of the Tribunal in fixing the quantum of compensation as Rs.1,31,280/-and awarding it under various heads is highly excessive and arbitrary. Further, the learned counsel argued that the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, scrutiny of findings of the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal is not pertinent in the instance case as it has not been established that the claimant has incurred permanent loss of income. Hence, the Court awards a compensation as follows: 1. For disability sustained by the claimant, this Court awards a sum of Rs.90,000/-as compensation to the claimant, 2. For pain and suffering, this Court awards a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the claimant, 3. For nutrition, this Court awards a sum of Rs.5,000/-and for transport expenses, this Court awards a sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation to the claimant, In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs.1,07,000/-as compensation to the claimant together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. Consequently, the award of Rs.1,31,280/- granted by the Tribunal has been scaled down to Rs.1,07,000/-by this Court, as it is found to be fair and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. Consequently, the award of Rs.1,31,280/- granted by the Tribunal has been scaled down to Rs.1,07,000/-by this Court, as it is found to be fair and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. On 29.03.2005, this Court directed the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount, with interest, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.305 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri. Further, this Court permitted the claimant to withdraw 50% of the award amount, with entire accrued interest and costs, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.305 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri. 16. As the accident happened in the year 1997, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the balance compensation amount of Rs.41,360/-together with interest, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.305 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri, after filing necessary payment out application, in accordance with law. 17. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the Award and Decree, dated 02.12.2003, in M.C.O.P.No.305 of 2003, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri, is modified. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.