Judgment :- 1. These appeals are preferred by the appellant-Insurance company against the award dated 30.04.2004, made in M.C.O.P. Nos.97 and 98 of 2003, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Bhavani. Both the appeals are arise out of the common award, which are taken up together. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The injured M.C.Palaniswamy in C.M.A.No.638 of 2005 and M.P.Murthy in C.M.A.639 of 2005 met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 30.11.2002 at about 08.30 p.m. The injured M.C.Palaniswamy was proceeding in the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN23 Z1588 as pillion rider along with rider M.P.Murthy on Bhavani-Mettur road. When they were nearing Kesarimangalam pirivu, a car bearing registration No.TN37 3030 belongs to the third respondent and insured with the appellant Insurance Company came in a rash and negligent manner and also at high speed and hit against the motorcycle. Due to which, both the injured sustained fractures and grievous injuries. The injured M.C.Palanisamy in C.M.A.No.638 of 2005 claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and M.P.Moorthi in C.M.A.No.639 of 2005 claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The said car was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, who 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 first respondent-driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and if so, what is the quantum of compensation?" 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 second respondent/driver of the car and in C.M.A.No.638 of 2005 the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,81,501/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition and in C.M.A.No.639 of 2005, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,20,950/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- C.M.A.No.638 of 2005 C.M.A.639 of 2005 Loss of income Rs. 2,01,600/- Rs. 86,400/- Medical expenses Rs. 53,901/- Rs. 13,550/- Transport expenses Rs. 1,000/- Rs. 1,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Extra-nourishment Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Total... Rs. 2,81,501/- Rs. 1,20,950/- Aggrieved by that award, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeals. 3. 2,01,600/- Rs. 86,400/- Medical expenses Rs. 53,901/- Rs. 13,550/- Transport expenses Rs. 1,000/- Rs. 1,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Extra-nourishment Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Total... Rs. 2,81,501/- Rs. 1,20,950/- Aggrieved by that award, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeals. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance company contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, and also without basis and justification and the Tribunal is wrong in adopting the multiplier method 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. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant in both appeals 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. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.A1 to A16 were marked. On the side of the appellant-Insurance company no witness was examined and no documents were marked to support their claim. P.W.1 is the claimants in C.M.A.No.638 of 2005. P.W.2 is the claimant in C.M.A.No.639 of 2005. P.W.3 is one Dr.Loganathan. Ex.A1 is the photo copy of the First Information Report. Ex.A2 is the xerox copy of the Observation Mahazar. Ex.A3 is the photo copy of the Rough Sketch. Ex.A4 is the xerox copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report. Ex.A5 is the xerox copy of the Wound Certificate of M.C.Palanisamy. Ex.A6 is the xerox copy of the Charge Sheet. Ex.A7 is the xerox copy of the Judgment of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Bhavani. Ex.A8 is the Discharge Summary and Medical Bills of M.C.Palanisamy. Ex.A9 is series of medicine receipts and bills of M.C.Palanisamy. Ex.A10 is the copy of the Wound Certificate of M.P.Moorthi. Ex.A11 is the series of medicine receipts and bills of M.P.Moorthi. Ex.A12 is the copy Discharge Summary and Medical Bills of M.P.Moorthi. Ex.A13 is the Permanent Disability Certificate of M.C.Palanisamy. Ex.A14 is the X-ray. Ex.A15 is the Permanent Disability Certificate of M.P.Moorthi and Ex.A16 is the X-ray. Ex.A10 is the copy of the Wound Certificate of M.P.Moorthi. Ex.A11 is the series of medicine receipts and bills of M.P.Moorthi. Ex.A12 is the copy Discharge Summary and Medical Bills of M.P.Moorthi. Ex.A13 is the Permanent Disability Certificate of M.C.Palanisamy. Ex.A14 is the X-ray. Ex.A15 is the Permanent Disability Certificate of M.P.Moorthi and Ex.A16 is the X-ray. 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 car/second respondent in both the appeals and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. C.M.A.No.638 of 2005: 6. At the time of the accident, the claimant M.C.Palanisamy was aged about 31 years old. He is an agriculturist, having 10 Acres of land. He was examined as PW1. In his evidence, he stated that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. The Car driver was also charge sheeted in Crime No.446 of 2002 under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. by Bhavani Police Station. Due to the said accident he sustained the following injuries: "1.Fracture in right leg knee, 2.Injuries over left leg palm, 3.Injuries over left shoulder, 4.Injuries over left eye-brow, 5.Over back side," P.W.3 is Doctor, who examined the injured. He determined the disability at 35%. The Disability Certificate was marked as Ex.A13. In his evidence, he stated that the injured sustained fracture of right femur and right tibia. Further, he stated that due to this injury, he is unable to move, walk and to work as before and there is restricted movement in his right knee. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal accepted 35% disability. In respect of the income, since there is no concrete evidence available, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.3,000/-and also fixed the monthly loss of income due to the 35% disability at Rs.1,050/- (Rs.3,000/- X 35/100). The Tribunal determined the annual loss of income at Rs.12,600/- (Rs.1,050/-X 12). Taking into consideration the age of the claimant is 38 years, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 16 and determined the loss of income due to 35% disability, at Rs.2,01,600/- (Rs.12,600/- X 16). The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company vehemently argued that it is not a fit case for adopting multiplier method. Taking into consideration the age of the claimant is 38 years, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 16 and determined the loss of income due to 35% disability, at Rs.2,01,600/- (Rs.12,600/- X 16). The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company vehemently argued that it is not a fit case for adopting multiplier method. Normally, the Courts award Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/-per percentage of disability and also there is no evidence that 35% disability affects the earning capacity of the injured and the correct method that should be adopted in the present case is percentage method. After taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, it is reasonable to award Rs.2,000/-for each percentage. Accordingly, the loss of income due to disability works out to Rs.70,000/- (Rs.2,000/-X 35%) as against Rs.2,01,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/-towards transport expenses, which is very low. The claimant deposed that he was admitted in hospital as inpatient for 60 days. Taking into consideration of the same. It is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- as against Rs.1,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards extra-nourishment, which is also very reasonable and therefore, the same is confirmed. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering. After taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.53,901/- towards medical expenses. Ex.A9 is the series of medical bills. It is an actual expenditure incurred by the claimant. Hence, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.52,000/- as against Rs.53,901/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities. The injured was hospitalised for 70 days. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities. The Tribunal has fixed the rate of interest at 9% p.a from the date of petition. The accident occurred on 30.11.2002. Keeping in view the prevailing rate of interest during that period is 9% the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- 35% disability loss of income Rs. 70,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000/- Transport expenses Rs. 10,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 52,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 10,000/- Total... The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- 35% disability loss of income Rs. 70,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000/- Transport expenses Rs. 10,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 52,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 10,000/- Total... Rs.1,67,000/- Therefore, the claimant in C.M.A.No.638 of 2005 is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.1,67,000/- with interest at 9% p.a as against the compensation of Rs.2,81,501/- awarded by the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance company has submitted that already entire award amount has been deposited as per the Order dated 02.03.2005 and the claimant was permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited. Therefore, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified award amount of Rs.1,67,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount already withdrawn, on making proper application. The appellant-Insurance company is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount on making proper application. C.M.A.No.639 of 2005: 8. At the time of the accident, the claimant M.P.Moorthi was aged about 38 years old. He is an agriculturist, having 10 Acres of land. He was examined as PW1. In his evidence, he stated that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. The Car driver was also charge sheeted in Crime No.446 of 2002 under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. by Bhavani Police Station. Due to the said accident he sustained the following injuries: "1.Fracture in left leg, 2.Injuries over left leg palm, 3.Injuries over left shoulder, 4.Injuries over left eye-brow, 5.Over right leg knee," P.W.3 the Doctor, who examined the injured, has determined the disability at 15%. The Disability Certificate was marked as Ex.A15. In his evidence, he stated that the injured sustained fracture in his left leg. Further, he stated that due to the injury, he is unable to move, sit, walk and do the work as before. Considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal accepted 15% disability. In respect of the income, since there is no concrete evidence available, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.3,000/-and fixed the monthly loss of income due to the 15% disability at Rs.450/-(Rs.3,000/-X 15/100). The Tribunal determined the annual loss of income at Rs.5,400/- (Rs.450/-X 12). Considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal accepted 15% disability. In respect of the income, since there is no concrete evidence available, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.3,000/-and fixed the monthly loss of income due to the 15% disability at Rs.450/-(Rs.3,000/-X 15/100). The Tribunal determined the annual loss of income at Rs.5,400/- (Rs.450/-X 12). Taking into consideration the age of the claimant is 38 years, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 16 and determined the loss of income due to 15% disability, at Rs.86,400/- (Rs.5,400/- X 16). The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company vehemently argued that it is not a fit case for adopting multiplier method. Normally, the Courts award Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/-per percentage of disability and also there is no evidence stating that 15% disability affects the earning capacity of the injured and the correct method that should be adopted in the present case is percentage method. After taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, it is reasonable to award Rs.2,000/-for each percentage. Accordingly, the loss of income due to disability works out to Rs.30,000/- (Rs.2,000/- X 15%) as against Rs.86,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/-towards transport expenses. The claimant was admitted in hospital as inpatient. Taking into consideration of the same, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very low and it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- as against Rs.1,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards extra-nourishment, which is also very reasonable and therefore, the same is confirmed. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. After taking into consideration of the nature of injuries sustained, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.13,550/- towards medical expenses. Exs.A11 and A12 are series of medical bills. It is an actual expenditure incurred by the claimant. Therefore the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities. The injured was hospitalised for 10 days. Considering the same, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of amenities. The Tribunal has fixed the rate of interest at 9% p.a from the date of petition. The accident occurred on 30.11.2002. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities. The injured was hospitalised for 10 days. Considering the same, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of amenities. The Tribunal has fixed the rate of interest at 9% p.a from the date of petition. The accident occurred on 30.11.2002. Keeping in view the prevailing rate of interest during that period is 9% the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- 15% disability loss of income Rs. 30,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000/- Transport Rs. 10,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 13,550/- Loss of amenities Rs. 10,000/- Total... Rs. 83,550/- Therefore, the claimant in C.M.A.No.639 of 2005 is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.83,550/- with interest at 9% p.a as against the compensation of Rs.1,20,950/- awarded by the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance company has submitted that already entire award amount has been deposited as per Order dated 02.03.2005 and the claimant was permitted to withdraw 50% of the award deposited. Therefore, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified award amount of Rs.83,550/-with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount already withdrawn, on making proper application. The appellant-Insurance company is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount on making proper application. 10. With the above modifications, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of. No costs.