Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company/appellant against the award and decree dated 11.05.2004 made in MCOP. No.375 of 2003 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, FTC-3, Vridhachalam. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The first respondent/injured met with motor vehicle accident on 11.05.1998 at about 10.30 p.m. While he was returning from Udumalpet to Sirkazhi with blue metal load in the lorry bearing Regn. No.TN-31-T-4878, due to some noise in the engine, he stopped the lorry. While he was checking the engine, at the time the lorry bearing Regn. No.TCT.5151 which came in a rash and negligent manner hit behind the parked lorry. As a result of the accident, the injured has caught under the front wheel of his lorry and sustained multiple fracture and grievous injury on both legs. Immediately he was admitted in the Raja Rajeswari Hospital, Dindigul. The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The appellant-Insurance Company resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent/ lorry driver or not? 2. What is the compensation, the claimants are entitled to? If so, what is the amount and from whom?" 3. 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 lorry belonging to the second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.5,21,400/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of income Rs. 3,26,400/- Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/- Future prospects Rs. 1,50,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 15,000/- Transportation Rs. 10,000/- Medical Bills Rs. 15,000/ Total.. Rs. 5,21,400/-Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company 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 and that therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 5. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company 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 and that 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 first respondent/claimant submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 3. 6. Heard the counsel and perused the materials available on record. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P25 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no one was examined and no documents were marked to substantiate their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant-Ayyappan. P.W.2 is the Doctor Mr. Rathnasabapathy. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of the wound certificate. Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 are the medical report. Ex.P4 is the statement of medical expenses. Ex.P6 is the Disability certificate. Ex.P7 is the certificate issued by the Railway authorities. Ex.P8 is the copy of the driving licence. Ex.P9 is the copy of the registration certificate of lorry. Ex.P10 is the copy of the insurance. Ex.P11 is the copy of the road tax receipt. Ex.P12 is the copy of the motor vehicle certificate. Ex.P13 is the medical bills. Ex.P14 is the table prepared by the Advocate. Ex.P15 and Ex.P16 are the copies of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report. Ex.P17 is the xray. Ex.P18 is the copy of the receipt for travelling in car. Ex.P19 is the Disability card. Ex.P20 is the letter from NLC. Ex.P21 is the copy of the Vehicle Registration Certificate. Ex.P22 is the copy of the insurance. Ex.P23 is the copy of the licence. Ex.P24 is the certificate of permanent disability. Ex.P25 is the Xray. 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 lorry and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 7. Ex.P24 is the certificate of permanent disability. Ex.P25 is the Xray. 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 lorry and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 7. The claimant was aged about 25 years at the time of the accident. He claimed that he was earning Rs.7,500/- per month by running hotel and also he was the owner of the lorry. But no documents were produced to substantiate the same. PW1-claimant, in his evidence, has stated that only the driver of the other lorry caused the accident and due to the accident he sustained multiple fractures in both the legs. Immediately, he was admitted in Raja Rajeswari hospital, Dindigul and took treatment from 12.05.1998 to 14.07.1998 and later from 21.08.1998 to 11.09.1998. PW1/injured in his examination, has stated that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. PW2/Doctor who examined the claimant has fixed the disability at 72% and marked the disability certificate as Ex.P24 and Ex.P25-Xray. Considering the fact that PW2-Doctor has examined the claimant only after a period of six years, the Tribunal fixed the permanent disability only at 40%. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that taking into consideration Exs.P19, 24 and 25 and also the oral evidence, the Tribunal ought not to have reduced the disability to 40%. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, it is reasonable to fix the disability at 50% as against 40% awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income at Rs.4000/-per month and determined the annual income at Rs.48,000 (Rs.4,000 x 12) and considering the age of the claimant, adopted the multiplier of 17 as per Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act and determined the loss of income at Rs.3,26,000/- (Rs.48,000/-x17x40/100). The learned counsel appearing for appellant-Insurance company vehemently contended that it is not a fit case for adopting the multiplier method. Normally the Courts award Rs.1000/- to 2000/-for each percentage of disability. The learned counsel appearing for appellant-Insurance company vehemently contended that it is not a fit case for adopting the multiplier method. Normally the Courts award Rs.1000/- to 2000/-for each percentage of disability. Considering Exs.P19, P24 and P25, it would be reasonable to take the disability at 50% and if Rs.2000/- is awarded per percentage of disability, the loss of income due to permanent disability works out to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.2000/-x 50% ) as against Rs.3,26,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,50,000/-towards future prospects. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded further sum of Rs.1,50,000/-towards future prospects when already a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-is awarded towards loss of income due to permanent disability. Therefore the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded towards future prospects is unwarranted and the same is deleted. The claimant took treatment as inpatient for a period of five months and he sustained fracture in his legs and during that period he lost his earnings. Hence, it is reasonable to fix a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. Considering the nature of injury sustained, it is reasonable to fix Rs.30,000/-towards pain and suffering as against Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards transport charges, which is very reasonable and the same is hereby confirmed. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards medical expenses and another sum of Rs.15,000/- towards medical bills. Exs.P4 and P13 are medical bills. It is an actual expenditure incurred by the claimant. The total claim in respect of medical bills is Rs.74,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/-towards medical expenses and further sum of Rs.15,000/- towards medical bills and totally a sum of Rs.30,000/-is awarded under this head. But there is no reason as to why the Tribunal has not awarded the said claim. Considering Exs.P4 and P13, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.74,000/-towards medical bills as claimed by the claimant. The Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards extra nourishment and attendant charges. After taking into consideration, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/-each under this head. Considering the period of treatment taken by the claimant from 12.05.1998 to 14.07.1998 and from 21.08.1998 to 11.09.1998, it is reasonable to fix Rs.6,000/-towards attendant charges. The Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards extra nourishment and attendant charges. After taking into consideration, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/-each under this head. Considering the period of treatment taken by the claimant from 12.05.1998 to 14.07.1998 and from 21.08.1998 to 11.09.1998, it is reasonable to fix Rs.6,000/-towards attendant charges. Considering the prevailing rate of interest during the treatment period, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under: Permanent disabilityRs.1,00,000/- Pain and sufferingRs. 30,000/- Medical ExpensesRs. 74,000/- TransportationRs. 10,000/- Extra nourishmentRs. 10,000/- Loss of income during treatment periodRs. 30,000/- Attender chargesRs. 6,000/- Rs.2,60,000/- Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- with interest at 9% per annum as against Rs.5,21,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. 8. It is stated that the appellant/insurance company has already deposited 50% of the award amount passed by the Tribunal as per the order of this Court dated 11.08.2006. Therefore, the first respondent-claimant is entitled to the modified award amount of Rs.2,60,000/- with interest at 9% per annum less the amount already withdrawn on making proper application. The appellant/insurance company is permitted to withdraw the balance amount on making proper application. 9. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.