JUDGMENT : D. Hariparanthaman, J. This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award made in M.C.O.P. No. 2938 of 2002 dated 27.9.2007, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No. II, Trichy. The appellant is the transport Corporation. On 3.4.2002 at about 8 p.m., the respondent rode a two-wheeler, namely, TVS XL on Trichy-Dindigul Main Road. The bus bearing registration No. TN 45-N 1655 of the appellant Corporation hit the respondent's two-wheeler from behind. The respondent was thrown out and he got grievous injuries on the head, on the right eye and all over the body. He was admitted in Maruthi Hospital, Trichy on 3.4.2002 as inpatient. He was treated up to 22.7.2002. The respondent was employed as Office Superintendent in Southern Railways. He was aged about 53 years at the time of the accident. Due to severe injuries, his vision in right eye was seriously affected. He also suffered giddiness, loss of memory and headache due to the head injuries. In these circumstances, he opted to go under voluntary retirement as he could not continue in the employment. He voluntarily retired from service on 1.8.2004. 2. He filed M.C.O.P. No. 2938 of 2002, claiming Rs. 7,00,000 as compensation. His son, the owner of the two-wheeler, filed M.C.O.P. No. 2939 of 2002, claiming damages for the vehicle. Both M.C.O.Ps. were tried together before the Tribunal. Five witnesses were examined on the side of the claimants. Documents Exh. A1 to Exh. A15 were marked. On the side of the appellant, the driver of the bus was examined and no document was marked. The Tribunal passed an award dated 27.9.2007 granting Rs. 2,50,000 as compensation with 7.5 per cent interest and costs to the claimant. 3. This appeal has been filed by appellant transport Corporation questioning the award on the ground that the Tribunal erred in holding that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent in causing the accident and that the Tribunal awarded excessive amount. 4. The respondent filed cross-objection seeking enhancement of the award amount up to Rs. 9,75,000. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. 6. 4. The respondent filed cross-objection seeking enhancement of the award amount up to Rs. 9,75,000. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the driver of the bus was not responsible for the accident and that the road where the accident took place was a crowded road and that the respondent on seeing a pit, came to the right side of the road and hit against the bus. Since the respondent came to the right side of the road to avoid a pit on the road, he should be held responsible for the accident. He relies upon the deposition of RW 1, the driver of the transport Corporation, in this regard. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant submits that the driver of the bus was solely responsible for the accident and that he drove rashly and negligently and hit the two-wheeler from behind. The learned counsel submits that F.I.R. was registered against the driver and that three witnesses including the claimant who witnessed the accident spoke consistently that the driver of the bus drove rashly and negligently and caused the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal could not be found fault with in its finding as to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the transport Corporation. 8. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that nowhere the appellant stated in the counter-statement that was filed in M.C.O.P. that there was a pit on the road and that the claimant came to the right side to avoid the pit and hit against the bus. It is submitted that it was an afterthought and the story was invented by the driver to escape his responsibility. 9. I have considered the submissions made on either side and also perused the records. 10. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimant that the transport Corporation nowhere stated in the counter that the claimant came to the right side of the road to avoid a pit on the road and in that process, he hit against the bus. Para 3 of the counter-statement of the appellant is relevant in this regard and the same is extracted here: (3) The allegations in para 23 of the petition are all denied as false and the accident did not happen in the manner as set out in the petition. Para 3 of the counter-statement of the appellant is relevant in this regard and the same is extracted here: (3) The allegations in para 23 of the petition are all denied as false and the accident did not happen in the manner as set out in the petition. On 3.4.2002, this respondent's vehicle bearing registration No. TN 45-N 1655 driven by its driver with all care and caution was proceeding from Trichy to Palani. At about 2000 hrs, the above said vehicle was proceeding near National College, Trichy. At that time, ahead of this respondent bus a moped rider was proceeding in the same direction. The driver of this respondent sounded the horn and made his intentions clear to overtake the moped rider. When actually 3/4th of this respondent's bus had passed the moped rider in the process of overtaking, the moped rider turned his moped to its right side and the moped dashed against the left side rear body of this respondent bus. Thus the driver of this respondent was in no way responsible for the accident. The petitioner was solely responsible for the accident." 11. But the driver spoke differently when he deposed before the Tribunal. The following is the discussion of the Tribunal that is found in para 9 of the award. The following passage is extracted hereunder; (Omitted as in vernacular) 12. It is clearly seen that the driver of the bus came with a different version. His deposition before Tribunal is not consistent with the statement in the counter. Further, three witnesses including the claimant spoke consistently that the driver of the bus was responsible for the accident. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the award of the Tribunal as to its finding that the driver was rash and negligent in causing the accident. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded Rs. 70,000 towards the disability compensation when the Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000 towards loss of earnings. The learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal also committed error in awarding Rs. 25,000 towards pain and suffering. 14. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Tribunal failed to adopt the multiplier method as per clause 5 (b) of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act for assessing the loss of income. The learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal also committed error in awarding Rs. 25,000 towards pain and suffering. 14. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Tribunal failed to adopt the multiplier method as per clause 5 (b) of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act for assessing the loss of income. The learned counsel submits that though the doctor assessed 35 per cent permanent partial disability, it should be taken as 100 per cent loss, as the claimant left the employment and opted to retire voluntarily. The learned counsel also submits that the claimant is entitled to be compensated for his loss of income until his retirement. 15. In this regard, clause 5 (b) of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, which is relevant for the purpose of the case, is extracted hereunder: 5. Disability in non-fatal accidents: The following compensation shall be payable in case of disability to the victim arising out of non-fatal accidents: Loss of income, if any, for actual period of disablement not exceeding fifty-two weeks. Plus either of the following: (a) In case of permanent total disablement the amount payable shall be arrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the multiplier applicable to the age on the date of determining the compensation, or (b) In case of permanent partial disablement such percentage of compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as specified under item (a) above. Injuries deemed to result in Permanent Total Disablement/Permanent Partial Disablement and percentage of loss of earning capacity shall be as per Schedule I under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 16. In view of clause 5 (b) of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier method and should have worked out the compensation payable to the claimant. The learned counsel for the claimant states that though the doctor certified that the claimant suffered 35 per cent permanent partial disability, since he left the employment due to the injuries, it should be taken that he suffered 100 per cent disability. That is, the learned counsel argues that the loss of earnings was 100 per cent. 17. On The other hand, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation seriously objects for taking that the claimant suffered 100 per cent loss of earning capacity. That is, the learned counsel argues that the loss of earnings was 100 per cent. 17. On The other hand, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation seriously objects for taking that the claimant suffered 100 per cent loss of earning capacity. The learned counsel submits that there is no evidence placed before the Tribunal that he left the employment due to the injury. Further, it is stated that he went under voluntary retirement and he is in receipt of pension and other benefits. Both counsel relied upon the evidence of the doctor in support of their contentions. The evidence of the doctor who was examined as PW 4 is extracted hereunder: (Omitted as in vernacular) The learned counsel for the claimant also seeks compensation for the loss in actual earnings due to voluntary retirement up to the date of the actual retirement. 18. I am not inclined to treat that the claimant had suffered 100 per cent loss of earning capacity. Nowhere the doctor said that he could not do any work. Further, no evidence is placed that he opted to go under voluntary retirement due to the injuries. In these circumstances, the submission of the learned counsel for the claimant that the claimant is entitled to compensation treating that he has suffered 100 per cent disability, deserves to be rejected. Likewise, the other submission of the learned counsel for the claimant that the claimant is entitled to the loss of the salary due to the voluntary retirement up to the date of actual retirement has no force. 19. However, as per clause 5 (b) of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant is entitled to compensation for 35 per cent of permanent partial disability. Claimant was paid Rs. 15,252 as monthly salary at the time of accident as per Exhs. A4 and A5 and the same is not disputed. The multiplier for the age of 53 years is 11' as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 ). Hence, the compensation for loss of income payable to the claimant as per clause 5 (b) of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act is Rs. 15,252 x 12 x 11 x 35/100 = Rs. 7,04,642.40. 20. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 ). Hence, the compensation for loss of income payable to the claimant as per clause 5 (b) of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act is Rs. 15,252 x 12 x 11 x 35/100 = Rs. 7,04,642.40. 20. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, if the claimant is awarded Rs. 7,04,642.40 as per clause 5 (b) of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant is not entitled to Rs. 70,000 towards disability compensation awarded by the Tribunal, as held by the Full Bench decision of this court in Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. Ahmed Thambi, 2006 ACJ 2703 (Madras), Therefore, the amount of Rs. 70,000 for disability compensation and Rs. 50,000 towards loss of income are deleted from the award. 21. I am not in agreement that the Tribunal awarded on the higher side towards pain and suffering. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute the other heads, though grounds were raised in the appeal. 23. In these circumstances, this court awards compensation to the claimant as follows: Compensation under clause 5 (b) of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act Rs. 7,04,642 For medical expenses Rs. 90,000 For pain and suffering Rs. 25,000 For transport, extra nourishment and medical attendant Rs. 15,000 For loss of amenities and enjoyment in life Rs. 25,000 Total Rs. 8,59,642 24. Appellant is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with the same interest as ordered by the Tribunal from the date of application. On such deposit being made, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.