Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant against award dated 27.03.2001 made in M.C.O.P No.76 of 1998 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judge) Cuddalore. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The first respondent Mr.M.Arunkumar, was met with an accident on 26.11.1997 at about 11.45 A.M. He was travelling in a bus bearing registration No.TN 32/N0808 belonging to the appellant transport corporation on its trip from Kallakurichi to Chennai. When the bus was nearing Salavathi village at about 11.45 A.M., a lorry bearing registration No.TN 04C 05952 belonging to the second respondent and insured with the third respondent, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, hit against the appellant transport corporation bus. In the result, some people sustained grievous injuries and one lady was died on the spot. The first respondent/claimant was grievously injured and his right upper limb was severed above elbow and immediately he was admitted in Tindivanam Government Hospital. In order to provide further treatment, he was taken to Stanley Government Hospital, Chennai. He claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The appellant transport corporation as well as the third respondent resisted the claim. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal framed the following issues. (i) Whether the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both vehicle or not? (ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to the compensation? If so how much? After hearing the arguments advanced on both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both vehicle involved in the accident and fixed the negligence at 50% each, on the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus as well as the driver of the lorry belonging to the second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.6,63,248/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. The details of compensation are as follows: Loss of income: Rs.6,40,512/- Pain and suffering: Rs. 5,000/- Extra nourishment: Rs. 5,000/- Medical expenses: Rs. 12,736/- Total Rs.6,63,248/- Aggrieved by that order, the appellant-Transport Corporation alone has filed the present appeal. The third respondent-Insurance company has not filed an appeal. 3. The details of compensation are as follows: Loss of income: Rs.6,40,512/- Pain and suffering: Rs. 5,000/- Extra nourishment: Rs. 5,000/- Medical expenses: Rs. 12,736/- Total Rs.6,63,248/- Aggrieved by that order, the appellant-Transport Corporation alone has filed the present appeal. The third respondent-Insurance company has not filed an appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the Tribunal erred in fixing the negligence on the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus as well as the driver of the lorry belonging to the second respondent. He also submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is exorbitant, without and basis and justification. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the relevant materials and awarded a just and reasonable compensation is based on the valid materials and evidence. Therefore, he submitted that the order of the Tribunal should be confirmed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent/claimant examined himself as P.W.1. P.W.2 is the doctor who examined the first respondent. EX.P1 dated 26.11.1997 FIR, EX.P2 dated 27.11.1997 Motor Vehicle Inspectors report, EX.P3 dated 26.11.1997 copy of accident register, EX.P4 dated 26.11.1997 medical prescription, EX.P5-copy of insurance policy, EX.P6 dated 26.11.1997 medical prescription of M.R. Hospital, Ex.P7-copy of driving licence, Ex.P8-copy of registration certificate, Ex.P9 dated 15.07.1997 salary certificate, Ex.P10-medical bills, Ex.P11 dated 09.06.2000 disability certificate, Ex.P12-X-ray were marked on the side of the respondents/claimants. On the side of the appellant, R.W.1-driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was examined. No documentary evidence was let in on the side of the appellant. In the present case, the Tribunal has fixed the negligence equally on the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation as well as the driver of the lorry belonging to the second respondent. Ex.P1 is the First Information Report. After considering Ex.P1, the Tribunal has fixed the liability equally on the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation as well as the driver of the lorry and directed the appellant as well as the third respondent to pay the compensation jointly. Ex.P1 is the First Information Report. After considering Ex.P1, the Tribunal has fixed the liability equally on the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation as well as the driver of the lorry and directed the appellant as well as the third respondent to pay the compensation jointly. The finding given by the Tribunal is based on valid material and evidence and hence, he order passed by the Tribunal in respect of negligence aspect is confirmed. 6. In respect of quantum, the injured was aged about 25 years at the time of the accident. He is working as the Service Engineer and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. PW1-claimant deposed in his evidence that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the drivers and had sustained crush injuries in his right upper limb and multiple injuries all over the body. PW2-Dr.Nandakumar, who examined the injured, has determined the disability at 90%. Ex.P11 is the disability certificate. The Doctor, in his oral evidence, has stated that the right hand of the injured was amputated and he cannot do any work and therefore, he fixed the disability at 90%. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has fixed the disability at 90%. Ex.P9 is the salary certificate of the claimant, in which, the salary of the claimant was mentioned at Rs.5,000/- per month. Out of the said sum, the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of Rs.1664/- towards personal expenses and the balance sum of Rs.3336/-was taken as the monthly contribution to the family of the deceased and has fixed the annual income at Rs.40,032/- (Rs.3336 x 12). After taking into consideration the age of the claimant-injured, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of "16" and awarded a sum of Rs.6,40,512/- (Rs.40032x16). In the present case, the right hand of the injured was amputated and the disability affected the earning capacity of 90% and there is no dispute regarding the same. Even though the appellant-Transport Corporation has disputed that multiplier method cannot be adopted in the case of injury, this Court is of the view that in extraordinary circumstance, the multiplier method can be adopted. In the case of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. Even though the appellant-Transport Corporation has disputed that multiplier method cannot be adopted in the case of injury, this Court is of the view that in extraordinary circumstance, the multiplier method can be adopted. In the case of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. VELUCHAMY AND ANOTHER reported in 2005 (1) CTC 38 , the Division Bench of this Court has formulated certain guidelines to be followed in the matter of adopting multiplier method, precisely in the case of permanent disability, which reads as follows. "11. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (a)In all case of injury or permanent disablement "multiplier method" cannot be mechanically applied to ascertain the future loss of income or earning power. (b)It depends upon various factors such as nature and extent of disablement, avocation of the injured and whether it would affect his employment or earning power, etc., and if so, to what extent? (c)(1)If there is categorical evidence that because of the injury and consequential disability, the injured lost his employment or avocation completely and has to be idle till the rest of his life, in that event loss of income or earning may be ascertained by applying "multiplier method" as provided under Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (2)Even if so there is no need to adopt the same period as that of fatal cases as provided under the schedule. If there is no amputation and if there is evidence to show that there is likelihood of reduction or improvement in future years, lesser period may be adopted for ascertainment of loss of income. (d)Mainly it depends upon the avocation or profession or nature of employment being attended by the injured at the time of accident." 7. The Supreme Court in the case of A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. By its Chief Law Officer V. M. Pentaiah Chary, 2007 (2) TN MAC 152 (SC), held as follows: "13. We therefore, fail to visualize that in a case of this nature a claimant can be deprived of a reasonable amount of Compensation despite the fact that he has permanently lost his capacity to earn and remain dependent on other besides physical sufferance of such magnitude as to why the multiplier suggested by the parliament should not be accepted. 14. We do not, however, intend to lay down a general law. 14. We do not, however, intend to lay down a general law. We wish to point out that minimum Compensation payable in a case of this nature should be considered from the sufferings of disability undergone by the victim. We are not suggesting that in certain situations, the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule cannot and should not be altered but therefor there must exist strong circumstances." Following the principles enunciated in the above judgment, I am of the view that the Tribunal has correctly followed the multiplier method and fixed the loss of income. Therefore, it is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and another sum of Rs.5,000/-towards extra nourishment, which is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. Further the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.12,736/-towards medical expenses. Ex.P10 are the medical bills. It is an actual expenditure incurred by the claimant. Hence, the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 12% per annum. The date of accident is on 26.11.1997. Considering the date of accident and the prevailing rate of interest during that period, the interest awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The finding given by the Tribunal is based on valid material and evidence. I do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference. The order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. 8. This above appeal is filed only by the appellant-Transport Corporation questioning the apportionment of liability at 50%. It is represented that the appellant has deposited the award amount and out of the said amount, the claimant has already withdrawn 50%. In these circumstances, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the balance amount, less the amount already withdrawn, on making proper application.