Judgment :- The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/second respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 02.08.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.331 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.4), Coimbatore at Tiruppur, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,55,920/- with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/second respondent, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the said award and decree. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 09.04.2003, at about 8.45 p.m. when the petitioner was walking with her husband on the Palladam to Udumalpet Main Road and when they were nearing Periapallam Bridge, the first respondents motorcycle bearing registration No.TN37 R5474, driven by its rider at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner sustained fracture of bones in her right leg and took treatment at Palladam Government Hospital. The petitioner took further treatment at Coimbatore Government Hospital. As a result of the accident, the petitioner is not able to stand or walk or squat. The movements of her right leg have become restricted. She is unable to move around without the help of the others. Before the accident, the petitioner was employed as a Coolie and was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. After the accident, she is not able to go to work. As such, the petitioner has sustained permanent disability, loss of income, pain and suffering and medical expenses and loss of earning capacity. Hence, the petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-from the first respondent, the owner of the said motorcycle and the second respondent, its insurer, at the time of the accident, under Section 166(1)A of Motor Vehicles Act. 4. Regarding the said accident, a criminal case has been registered at the Kamanaicken Palayam Police Station as Crime No.76/2003. 5. The second respondent, in his Counter has resisted the claim stating that the age, income and occupation of the petitioner and nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner has to be proved. 4. Regarding the said accident, a criminal case has been registered at the Kamanaicken Palayam Police Station as Crime No.76/2003. 5. The second respondent, in his Counter has resisted the claim stating that the age, income and occupation of the petitioner and nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner has to be proved. It is also submitted that the accident did not happened due to high speed and rash driving of the driver of motorcycle as alleged in the claim but happened only due to the carelessness of the petitioners, who crossed the road suddenly, without noticing the two wheeler. 6. It has further been submitted that the rider of the said two wheeler TN37 R5474 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle, which was involved in the accident. It has also been submitted that the claim is excessive and without merits. 7. On the petitioners side, three witnesses were examined and seven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7. On the respondents side no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. 8. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely: (i) Whether the accident was caused due to the negligence and rash driving by the driver of the first respondents vehicle? Is the petitioner entitled to receive compensation? (ii) What is the quantum of compensation, which the petitioner is entitled to get? 9. The Tribunal heard the arguments advanced on either sides. The petitioner was examined as PW1. PW1, in her evidence had deposed that on 09.04.2003, at about 8.45 p.m. when she and her husband were walking on the mud road on the extreme left of the mud road on the Palladam to Udumalpet Main Road and her husband was walking along side pushing a cycle, the Motorcycle bearing registration No.TN37 R5474, driven by its rider at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, without adhering to traffic rules, had dashed against them. Even during cross-examination, the evidence given by PW1 has not been refuted. The husband of the petitioner was examined as PW2 and his evidence was in consonance with that of PW1. Even during his cross-examination, his evidence has been firm. Even during cross-examination, the evidence given by PW1 has not been refuted. The husband of the petitioner was examined as PW2 and his evidence was in consonance with that of PW1. Even during his cross-examination, his evidence has been firm. From an examination of Ex.P1-FIR, the manner of the accident is seen and it is also seen that a criminal case been filed against the driver of the first respondents vehicle under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. As such the Tribunal considering that no witnesses have been examined or documents advanced by the respondents side, and on the evidence given by the PW1 and PW2 and scrutiny of Ex.P1-FIR held that the accident was caused only due to the high speed at which the first respondents rider had driven his motorcycle and his negligence and hence held that the first and second respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 10. On the scrutiny of Ex.P5-copy of Accident Register, the age of the petitioner has been given as between 45 and 50 Years. Though the petitioner had stated that she was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month doing Coolie work, no documentary proof had been advanced by her in support of this contention. The Tribunal, therefore, on considering her evidence, age and occupation held that the petitioner could have earned a sum of Rs.2,100/- per month. It is seen, on examination of Ex.P2-Medical Treatment Record, that the petitioner had received treatment at Palladam Government Hospital from 10.04.2003 to 07.05.2003. From an examination of Ex.P3-copy of Accident Register, it is seen that the petitioner had received minor injuries on her left knee, left foot heel and grievous fracture in her right thigh. 11. The Doctor, who had given the Disability Certificate to the petitioner was examined as PW3. The PW3, in his evidence has deposed that the petitioner still experiences pain in her right leg due to the improper setting of the fracture bone in her right thigh. He has also deposed that the size and strength of the muscles as well as sensitivity of her right thigh is diminished. It is also evident from the Xrays taken of her right thigh that the fractured bone has not set properly. He has also deposed that the size and strength of the muscles as well as sensitivity of her right thigh is diminished. It is also evident from the Xrays taken of her right thigh that the fractured bone has not set properly. Due to this, the petitioner is not able to sit, walk and do her routine work as she was doing before the accident and hence, the Doctor had stated that the petitioner had sustained a permanent disability of 50% and marked Ex.P6, the Disability Certificate and Ex.P7-Xrays. He had further stated on cross-examination, that the petitioner had taken "Maavukattu Treatment" for two months and that he had not seen the Xrays of her leg immediately after this treatment. 12. The Tribunal on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after considering the Doctors evidence, decided that the disability sustained by the petitioner could only be taken as 45%. The Tribunal adopting a multiplier of 13, relevant to the petitioners age assessed the loss of income due to disability as Rs.2,100/- X 12 X 13 X 45%=Rs.1,47,420/-. The Tribunal granted an award of Rs.500/- towards transport, Rs.1,500/- for nutrition and Rs.6,500/-for pain and suffering incurred by the petitioner. Considering that the petitioner had taken treatment only at Government Hospital, the Tribunal did not grant compensation for medical expenses. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,55,920/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation and directed the respondents to jointly and severally deposit the above said award with interest into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.331 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.4), Coimbatore at Tiruppur, within a period of one month from the date of its Order. The Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.6,118/-. The respondents were directed to pay the costs of the petition to the petitioner. Further, the Tribunal directed that after such deposit of the award is made, it was to be invested in a Nationalised Bank as fixed deposit for three years and the petitioner was permitted to receive interest on such deposit, once in a month, directly from the bank. The petitioner was directed to pay the balance Court fee on the award amount before receive the copy of the decree passed by the Tribunal. 13. The petitioner was directed to pay the balance Court fee on the award amount before receive the copy of the decree passed by the Tribunal. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that as per the claim petition and Ex.A2-Hospital Summary Discharge, the first respondent has suffered fracture of left leg, whereas, PW3, has assessed the disability to the claimant in her right leg. 14. It has been contended that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that even according to PW1 and PW3, the claimant suffered fracture in the left thigh as bone out by Exs.A2 and A3, whereas PW1 and PW3 in their oral evidence did not refer to any injury to the left leg but referred only to a fracture in right thigh, and so the learned Tribunal had failed to appreciate that as per Government Hospital Records, there was no fracture in the right leg of petitioner and therefore the evidence of Exs.PW1 and PW3 were false. 15. As such, it has been contended that as the assessment made by the Doctor in the right leg has no relevance to the accident injuries and the alleged injury or fracture to the right thigh and disability of 50% due to such injury has no bearing to the accident injuries. 16. As such, it has been contended that the award of Rs.1,47,420/- granted by the Tribunal for alleged loss of income is erroneous, when the alleged disability did not relate to accident injuries. The learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that in the absence of Proof of disability and in the absence of proof of any diminishing income or reduction in rank or loss of job, the learned Tribunal was wrong in awarding a huge compensation of Rs.1,55,920/-. 17. As such, it has been prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 18. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the claimant had sustained bone fracture injuries in her thigh of leg. The fractured bone has not set and she has difficulty in doing work as a Coolie. Further, the injured petitioner could not regain her normal strength after the accident. Hence, she is unable to do Coolie work. 18. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the claimant had sustained bone fracture injuries in her thigh of leg. The fractured bone has not set and she has difficulty in doing work as a Coolie. Further, the injured petitioner could not regain her normal strength after the accident. Hence, she is unable to do Coolie work. She is an illiterate lady and she depends upon her physical strength to earn her livelihood. Now, she is unable to do any physical work due to the said accident. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either sides, and Medical Certificate issued by the Doctor and evidence adduced by the claimant and Doctor, there is a dispute regarding which, leg of the petitioner has been affected due to the said accident. This Court opines that both the parties have admitted that there is a fracture in one of the legs of the petitioner. As such, the claimants petition cannot be rejected based on this technical error, this Court holds that she is entitled to get compensation. The Tribunal had adopted the multiplier method of calculation to assess compensation. The Court opines that this method is not pertinent to this case. Hence, the Court awards the compensation to the claimant as follows: (i) For 50% disability : Rs.1,00,000/- (taking Rs.2,000/- for 1% disability, as claimant is a Coolie) (ii) For pain and suffering undergone by the claimant : Rs. 15,000/- (iii)For nutrition : Rs. 5,000/- (iv)For transportation charges: Rs. 5,000/- (v)For medical expenses : Rs. 5,000/- Rs.1,30,000/- In total, this Court grants an award of Rs.1,30,000/-together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, as this is found to be fair and equitable in the circumstances of the case. 20. This Court had directed the appellant on 03.03.2005 to deposit the entire compensation award amount with interest and costs, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.331 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.4), Coimbatore at Tiruppur. Further, the Court had permitted the respondent/claimant to withdraw 50% of the award amount. The same was withdrawn by the claimant. 21. It is open to the respondent/claimant to withdraw the balance amount (ie. Further, the Court had permitted the respondent/claimant to withdraw 50% of the award amount. The same was withdrawn by the claimant. 21. It is open to the respondent/claimant to withdraw the balance amount (ie. after deducting earlier withdrawn amount from the award granted by this Court ie. an award of Rs.1,30,000/-) with interest, which has to be calculated as per the Tribunal Order. The excess compensation amount deposited by the appellant can be withdrawn by them, with accrued interest on the excess amount paid by them, after observing necessary Court formalities. 22. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the award and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.4), Coimbatore at Tiruppur, in M.C.O.P.No.331 of 2003, is modified. No costs.