Judgment :- 1. C.M.A.No.138 of 2001 is preferred by the appellant-Transport Corporation against the award dated 16.03.2000 made in MCOP No.871 of 1995 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Judge, Court of Small Causes) Chennai. 2. Cross Objection No.69 of 2009 is filed by the claimant against the award dated 16.03.2000 made in MCOP No.871 of 1995 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Judge, Court of Small Causes) Chennai. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The Injured Jailini met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 22.11.1994 at about 10.55 a.m. While the said injured was riding his bicycle on Ashok nagar, 10th avenue from east to west direction, a bus bearing Registration No. TCB-4792 belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation came in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction, hit against the cyclist. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries all over his body. The Claimant claimed Rs.2,00,000/-as compensation. The appellant-Transport Corporation has resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the appellant-Transport Corporation is responsible to give compensation to the claimant? 2. What is the compensation, the claimant is entitled to from the appellant-Transport Corporation?" After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,95,000/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of income Rs.2,70,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/- Transport, Extra nourishment and Medical expenses Rs. 10,000/- ------------------ Total... Rs. 2,95,000/- ------------------ Aggrieved by that order, the appellant-Transport Corporation as well as the claimant filed the present appeal and the cross objection. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation 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. He further stated that the Tribunal also adopted the multiplier method for awarding a compensation in the case of injury. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation as claimed by the claimant. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation as claimed by the claimant. The Tribunal awarded only low and meagre compensation and also the Tribunal should have awarded higher compensation in respect of transport charges, extra nourishment, medical expenses, pain and suffering. Therefore, it is a fit case for enhancement. 6. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, the claimant himself was examined as P.W.1. P.W.2 is the Doctor Thiagarajan. P.W.3 one Mariadoss, is an eye-witness of the accident. Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. Exs.P1 to P3 are the discharge summary given by the hospital, Ex.P4 is the series of photos, Ex.P5 is the F.I.R., Ex.P6 is the disability certificate, Ex.P7 is the X-ray. Ex.P8 is the report given by the Radiologist, Ex.P9 is the case sheet. On the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation, one Ramakrishnan, who is the driver was examined as R.W.1. 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 driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation and the appellant-Transport Corporation alone is responsible for payment of compensation to the claimant. The finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 7. At the time of accident, the injured was aged about 16 years. He was helper in a tailor shop namely Taj tailors, Lucky plaza, No.7, Ranganathan street, Chennai and he was earning Rs.20/- per day. P.W.1-claimant in his evidence, it has stated that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation. Due to the said accident, he suffered fracture on his hip and femur. A case has been registered against the driver of the bus by the Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation, Guindy, in VAR No. 4339/S1/94. Immediately, after the accident, he was admitted in the Government Hospital at Royapettah and took treatment from 22.11.1994 to 07.05.1995 as in-patient. Exs.P1 to P3 are the discharge summaries given by the hospital. A case has been registered against the driver of the bus by the Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation, Guindy, in VAR No. 4339/S1/94. Immediately, after the accident, he was admitted in the Government Hospital at Royapettah and took treatment from 22.11.1994 to 07.05.1995 as in-patient. Exs.P1 to P3 are the discharge summaries given by the hospital. After discharged from the hospital, the injured went to his native place at Tanjore and took further treatment and subsequently, a rod was also fixed. Due to the said accident, he is unable to walk without support and he can only crawl. P.W.2-Doctor, who examined the claimant has determined the disability as 100% and stated that the claimant suffered with fractures in his hip, left leg and femur and the urinary track also affected very much. He determined the disability as follows: a) Fracture in femur - 40%, b) Fracture in hip - 20% c) Fracture in left leg - 30% d) Damage to skin - 15% e) Damage to urinary track – 25% Totally, he determined the disability as 130%. Further, it is stated that Ex.P7 is the x-ray and Ex.P8 is the report are marked to prove the same. The claimant was treated for a period of 197 days as inpatient in the hospital. After considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal accepted the doctors evidence and determined the total disability at 100%. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the claimant, who is the minor at the time of the accident was taken training in the tailoring shop. Though he was the trainee, the Tribunal on the basis of the Schedule-2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, fixed the annual income of the claimant at Rs.15,000/-. The Tribunal, by following the Judgment in the case of (Uttarpradesh State Transport Corporation v. Trilokchander and others) reported in 1996(2) Law Weekly, 266 adopted the multiplier of 18 and determined the loss of income at Rs. 2,70,000/- (Rs.15,000/- X 18). Though the appellant-Transport Corporation filed the appeal in C.M.A. No.138 of 2001 questioning the quantum of award passed by the Tribunal, they have not produced any material evidence to take a contrary view. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the disability affected 100% of the earning capacity of the injured. In the case of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the disability affected 100% of the earning capacity of the injured. 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." 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." Taking note of the principles enunciated in the above Judgements, I am of the view that the Tribunal is correct in adopting multiplier method. In this case, a specific finding was given by the Tribunal that the disability affected the earning capacity of the claimant. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income due to disability is very reasonable and the same is hereby confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant stated that he was in the hospital for a period of more than 200 days and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very low. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, I feel that it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.22,500/- towards pain and suffering as against the compensation of Rs.15,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also awarded a consolidated sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges, extra nourishment and medical expenses, which I feel is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has also fixed the rate of interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident. The accident had occurred on 22.11.1994. Considering the prevailing rate of interest during that period, the rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- 100% permanent disability : Rs.2,70,000/- pain and suffering : Rs. 22,500/- Transport,extra nourishment and medical expenses : Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs.3,02,500/- Less the amount already awarded by the Tribunal Rs.2,95,000/- Enhanced compensation Rs. 7,500/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.7,500/-with interest 7.5% per annum. 8. The appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the modified compensation of Rs.7,500/- with interest at 7.5% within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the enhanced amount on making proper application. 8. The appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the modified compensation of Rs.7,500/- with interest at 7.5% within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the enhanced amount on making proper application. It is further stated that the award amount of Rs.2,95,000/-with interest 12% has already been deposited as per the order of the Court dated 16.03.2000 and the claimant has already been permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the balance amount, on making proper application. 9. With the above modification, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection are disposed of. No costs.