Judgment :- R. Banumathi, J. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, Claimants have filed these Appeals for enhancement of compensation for personal injuries sustained by them. Since both Appeals arise out of the common order and the points for determination are one and same, both the Appeals were taken up together and disposed of by this Common Judgment. 2. Brief facts are that on 08.08.2002 at about 18.30 hours, the Claimants Chandra Mohan and Kandaswamy were travelling in the Jeep bearing registration No.TN-21 G 0509 driven by deceased Satishkumar proceeding from Maraimalai Nagar to Nammalwarpet in 200 feet Bye-Pass road. When the Jeep was proceeding at Anakaputhur River Bridge, the lorry bearing registration No. TCZ 6361 came from the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed against the Jeep. Due to that impact, the Jeep was smashed and driver of the Jeep was died on the spot and Claimants Chandra Mohan and Kandaswamy have sustained multiple fractures and injuries all over the body. Regarding the accident, a criminal case was registered in Crime No.454/2002 of Kundrathur Police Station. After the accident, the Claimant Chandra Mohan was admitted in Sri Ramachandra Hospital, Porur and Claimant Kandaswamy was firstly admitted in Government Hospital, Chrompet and thereafter at Sri Ramachandra Hospital, Porur. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, Claimants have filed Claim Petitions under Sec.166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.36,00,000/- and Rs.23,00,000/- respectively. 3. Before the Tribunal, three Claim Petitions were filed in MCOP Nos.5249, 5277 and 5278/2002. 2nd Claimant-mother of deceased Satish Kumar in MCOP.No.5249/2002 was examined as PW1. Claimants Chandra Mohan [MCOP.No.5277/2002] and Kandaswamy [MCOP.No.5278/2002] themselves examined as PWs.2 and 3. Dr.Veerakumar who issued Exs.P36 and P39-disability certificates was examined as PW4 and Dr.Kalkura-Dental Surgeon who issued Ex.P42 was examined as PW5 and Dr.S.Gopalan, Civil Surgeon who issued Exs.P43 and P44 was examined as PW7. One Mahesh was examined as PW6. Exs.P1 to P44 were marked on the side of the Claimants. On the side of the Respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 4. Finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, Tribunal held that the owner of the lorry and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Exs.P1 to P44 were marked on the side of the Claimants. On the side of the Respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 4. Finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, Tribunal held that the owner of the lorry and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. In MCOP.No.5277/2002 [Chandra Mohan], Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,16,000/- and in MCOP.No.5278/2002 [Kandaswamy], Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,39,000/- under various heads. 5. It is not necessary for us to narrate entire facts in detail as to how the accident occurred and who was negligent and who is liable to pay compensation and coverage of Policy. It is for the reason that these aspects are recorded infavour of Claimants and consequently, none of the findings are under challenge, only quantum is under dispute. 6. C.M.A.No.3018/2006 [MCOP.No.5277/2002 – Chandra Mohan]: In his evidence, PW2-Chandra Mohan has stated that he sustained head injuries and fracture of right hand and also sustained fracture in both thighs. PW2 had also sustained multiple injuries (a) Bilateral fracture shaft of femur; (b) Fracture over right ulna; (c) Fracture in tooth 42; (d) Linear fracture over left frontal bone; (e) Fracture over left temporal bone. He had also sustained laceration over the upper hip, below lower hip and laceration with multiple injuries over the lower end of forearm in the volar aspect and abrasions over the right cheek. There was depressed fracture right temporal bone with underlying small non-haemorrhage, contusion and linear fracture of frontal bone on the left side. 7. After the accident, PW2-Chandra Mohan was admitted in Sri Ramachandra Hospital, Porur where he had taken treatment as inpatient from 08.08.2002 to 12.09.2002. For about 6 days, he was kept in ICU. During treatment open intramedullary interlocking nailing right side femur was done on 26.8.2002 and intramedullary nailing left side femur was done on 30.8.2002. Number of X-rays were also taken. After intensive treatment, PW2 was made to walk only with walker support. In his evidence, PW2 has stated that even after intensive treatment, he is not in a position to lift heavy objects with his right hand and that he has difficulty in walking and climbing staircase. 8. PW4-Dr.Veerakumar examined PW2-Chandra Mohan with reference to the documents of treatment particulars and also examined him clinically. In his evidence, PW2 has stated that even after intensive treatment, he is not in a position to lift heavy objects with his right hand and that he has difficulty in walking and climbing staircase. 8. PW4-Dr.Veerakumar examined PW2-Chandra Mohan with reference to the documents of treatment particulars and also examined him clinically. In his evidence, PW4 has stated that even after the treatment, PW2 had pain in both thighs and that there was shortening of left leg by 1½ inch. PW4 also noticed rods inserted in both legs and the right leg has only 60 degree movement as against the normal 125 degrees. PW4 had also noticed pain in the right and left hip and PW4 has assessed the permanent and partial disability at 52%. Ex.P36 is the disability certificate issued by PW4. 9. In the accident, PW2 had also sustained facial injuries and fracture of lower right lateral incisor and laceration over medial aspect of chin. Due to fracture tooth extraction deranged occlusion causing mascogatery, Dysfunction with medial and lateral disfigurement of canine and incisor right. Due to scar pressing inner aspect of lower lip causing muscular dysfunction. The scar causing disfigurement and loss of hair growth. PW5 had also noticed disfiguration and assessed the permanent and partial disability at 15%. Ex.P42 is the disability certificate issued by him. Mariogatery 10. PW2 had studied Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. From Ex.P18, it is seen that he had also studied Diploma in Electrical Systems. He had obtained C licence for doing business. PW2 along with his family members has been taking electrical contract work and doing the business in the name of the Firm "R.V.Vel Electricals". Exs.P21 and P22 are the income tax returns paid in the name of the Firm "R.V.Vel Electricals" for the year 1997-98. From the years 2001-2004, income tax was paid for the Firm by the Claimant as is seen from Ex.P23. In his evidence, PW2 has stated that he was doing the business along with his father and brother Satish Kumar who died in the accident. PW2 has further stated that his father had undergone bye-pass surgery and therefore, he and his younger brother Mahesh were only doing the partnership business. Ex.P24 is the deed of partnership evidencing that the Firm has been doing the business. PW2 has further stated that his father had undergone bye-pass surgery and therefore, he and his younger brother Mahesh were only doing the partnership business. Ex.P24 is the deed of partnership evidencing that the Firm has been doing the business. To show R.V.Vel Electricals is doing electrical work in various Companies and Institutions, Ex.P27 [18.02.2002] letter sent by National Institute of Fashion Technology was marked by the Claimant. Ex.P25 is the certificate showing Tax Deduction at source. In his evidence, PW2 has stated that even though he is carrying the business with his younger brother Mahesh after the death of his brother Satish KUmar, he is not in a position to effectively do his business. PW2 has stated that whenever he takes head bath, he gets cold and headache. PW2 has further stated that he is not in a position to lift heavy articles and he is not in a position to walk long distance and to climb the staircase. In his evidence, PW2 has also stated that from the contract business, he is getting about Rs.20,000/- per month and because of the permanent disability, he is not in a position to effectively carry on the business. Absolutely, no document was produced to show that PW2-Chandra Mohan has been earning Rs.20,000/- per month. 11. As pointed out earlier, PWs.4 and 5 have assessed the disability at 52% and 15% respectively. Tribunal has awarded only Rs.70,000/-for permanent disability. When the Claimant has sustained more injuries with fracture and substantial permanent disability, the Tribunal could have adopted multiplier method in awarding the compensation. 12. In personal injury cases for ascertaining compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning power, Court could adopt multiplier method. In 2005 (1) CTC 38 [United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Tiruchengode v. Veluchamy and another], the Division Bench of this Court, in Paragraph (11) has laid down the principles governing assessment of damages in personal injury cases. "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? (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 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 the 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. Applying the ratio of the above decision, in our considered view, the Tribunal should have adopted multiplier method for awarding compensation for permanent disability. 13. As pointed out earlier, absolutely, there is no evidence to show the income of the Claimant. Even to show that his monthly income would be Rs.20,000/-, Claimant has not produced any documents. Claimant has also not examined any of the representative of the Firm for whom they have been doing electrical work. Nor has he adduced any evidence to show how he waas prevented from continuing his work and he is unable to carry on his normal avocation. Considering the qualifications of PW2, the income of PW2 is fixed as Rs.3,000/- per month. Based on the evidence of PWs.4 and 5 and Exs.P36, P42 and P43, permanent disability is taken as 60%. At the time of accident, PW2 was aged 24 years and therefore, as per Second Schedule to M.V. Act, "17" multiplier is adopted. Accordingly, the compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning power is calculated at Rs.3,67,200/- [Rs.3000/- x 12 x 17 x 60/100 = Rs.3,67,200/-] which is rounded to Rs.3,70,000/-. 14. Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- for mental agony to family members. Accordingly, the compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning power is calculated at Rs.3,67,200/- [Rs.3000/- x 12 x 17 x 60/100 = Rs.3,67,200/-] which is rounded to Rs.3,70,000/-. 14. Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- for mental agony to family members. In case of personal injury, awarding of compensation for mental agony to family members is not permissible and the said amount of Rs.5,000/- is modified as Rs.10,000/- for the attendant charges during the period of treatment. Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- for loss of marriage prospects. In our considered view, the Claimant being unmarried, there cannot be a separate award of compensation under such head like loss of marriage prospects and Rs.25,000/- awarded under loss of marriage prospects is ordered to be deleted. 15. In so far as other heads, Tribunal has awarded Rs.36,000/- for loss of income during the period of treatment; Rs.5,000/- for transportation; Rs.5,000/- for extra-nourishment; Rs.1,45,000/- for medical expenses and Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering, which in our considered view being reasonable warranting no interference and the same are maintained. 16. In modification, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.5,96,000/- as under:-Loss of earning during the period of treatment : Rs. 36,000.00 Transport charges: Rs. 5,000.00 Extra-nourishment: Rs. 5,000.00 Medical expenses: Rs. 1,45,000.00 Attendant Charges: Rs. 10,000.00 Pain and Suffering: Rs. 25,000.00 Permanent Disability: Rs. 3,70,000.00 Total : Rs. 5,96,000.00 The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. and the same is maintained. 17. C.M.A.No.3019/2006 [MCOP.No.5278/2002 – Kandaswamy]: In his evidence, PW3-Kandaswamy has stated that in the accident he sustained head injury and fracture in left iliac and also left elbow. After the accident, PW3 became unconscious. PW3 had sustained multiple injuries (a) Fracture shaft of femur right side; (b) Both column fracture left acetabulum with post dislocation left hip; (c) Fracture superior pubic rami right side. He had also sustained head injuries. 18. After the accident, PW3-Kandaswamy was admitted in Sri Ramachandra Hospital, Porur where he had taken treatment as inpatient from 08.08.2002 to 21.09.2002. Again, he was admitted as inpatient and taken treatment from 16.10.2002 to 21.10.2002 and had also taken physiotherapy treatment. During treatment reduction of posterior dislocation left hip was done on 08.08.2002; Open reduction and internal fixation with reconstruction plate for acetabular fracture was done on 20.08.2002; and Open interlocking intramedullary right femur was done on 07.09.2002. Again, he was admitted as inpatient and taken treatment from 16.10.2002 to 21.10.2002 and had also taken physiotherapy treatment. During treatment reduction of posterior dislocation left hip was done on 08.08.2002; Open reduction and internal fixation with reconstruction plate for acetabular fracture was done on 20.08.2002; and Open interlocking intramedullary right femur was done on 07.09.2002. After the treatment, PW3 had surgical scar over anterior aspect extending from pubic symphysis to iliac crest and surgical scar over posterolateral aspect extending into the gluteal region. There was also shortening of left lower limb. 19. PW7-Dr.Gopalan, Civil Surgeon had examined PW3-Kandaswamy with reference to documents, nature of treatment and also clinically examined him noticing loss of memory, headache on the left side and other injuries. PW7 had assessed the permanent disability at 40%. Ex.P44 is the disability certificate. PW4-Dr.Veerakumar had also examined PW3 with reference to documents, nature of treatment and also examined him clinically. PW4 noticed shortening of right lower limb by 1½ inch, moderate pain in both hip and restricted movements of both hip and knee joints. PW4 had noticed fixation of plate for acetabular fracture. He had also noticed intramedullary right femur. On examination, PW4 noticed that there was restricted movement of both right hip and left hip. As against 125 degrees of normal movement, PW3 had only 90 degrees in the left leg. As per the guidelines prepared by Ministry of Social Justice and Employment, New Delhi, PW4 assessed the permanent disability at 55%. Ex.P39 is the disability certificate issued by PW4. 20. In his evidence, PW3 has stated that he was continuing his treatment for about 1½ years and he has difficulty in walking. PW3 further stated that he is having headache and unable to walk long distance. PW3 also stated that he is not in a position to use Indian toilet and he has difficulty in carrying on his day today routine. Prior to the accident, PW3 was doing electrical work. PW3 has stated that after the accident, he is not in position to do his electrical work by climbing the ladder or stool and therefore, he is deprived of carrying on his normal avocations. PW3 has stated that because of difficulty in walking, now he is only doing the work of Accountant in Milk vending shop and getting Rs.750/- per month. PW3 has stated that because of difficulty in walking, now he is only doing the work of Accountant in Milk vending shop and getting Rs.750/- per month. Tribunal has taken the permanent disability at 60% and awarded Rs.60,000/- for permanent disability and another Rs.60,000/- for loss of earning power. 21. In 2006-3-LW 1025 [Cholan Roadways Corpn. Ltd. Rep. by Managing Director, Kumbakonam v. Ahmed Thambi and others], First Bench of this Court has considered the principles of assessment of compensation for permanent disability and on account of earning capacity. Holding that loss of earning capacity and compensation for permanent disability need not be separately assessed. To ensure clarity and transparency in the award of damages, First Bench of this Court has laid down guidelines and also enumerated various heads under which the compensation is to be itemised. "19. In order to avoid any future confusion and to bring more clarity and transparency in the award of damages, it is necessary that the tribunal, while awarding damages, should itemise the award under each of the head namely, pecuniary losses and nonpecuniary losses. In the non-pecuniary losses the tribunal shall consider a) pain and suffering, b) loss of amenity, c) loss of expectation of life, hardship, mental stress, etc; d) loss of prospect of marriage and under the head pecuniary loses, the tribunal shall consider loss of earning capacity and loss of future earnings as one component apart from medical and other expenses and loss of earning, if any from the date of accident till the date of trial. When loss of earning capacity is compensated as also the nonpecuniary losses under (a) to (d), permanent disability need not be separately itemised." Following the decision of the Full Bench cited supra, in our considered view, there cannot be compensation under two different heads loss of permanent disability and loss of earning power. 22. As PW3 was doing electrical work, his income is taken as Rs.3000/- per month. Based upon the evidence of PWs.4 and 7 and Exs.P39 and P44-Disability certificates, the permanent disability is fixed at 60%. Applying the ratio of 2005 (1) CTC 38 [United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Tiruchengode v. Veluchamy and another], compensation of Rs.3,67,200/- is awarded for permanent disability [Rs.3000/-x 12 x 17 x 60/100 = Rx.3,67,200] which is rounded to Rs.3,70,000/-. 23. Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/-for mental agony to family members. Applying the ratio of 2005 (1) CTC 38 [United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Tiruchengode v. Veluchamy and another], compensation of Rs.3,67,200/- is awarded for permanent disability [Rs.3000/-x 12 x 17 x 60/100 = Rx.3,67,200] which is rounded to Rs.3,70,000/-. 23. Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/-for mental agony to family members. The said amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded for mental agony to family members is modified as Rs.10,000/- for attendant charges during the period of treatment. Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- for loss of marital life. PW3 being a married man, in our considered view, there cannot be separate award of compensation for loss of marital life. Having regard to the duration/two spells of treatment which the Claimant had taken, an amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded for loss of marital life is added to pain and suffering and compensation for pain and suffering is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. 24. In so far as other heads, Tribunal has awarded Rs.18,000/-for loss of income during the period of treatment; Rs.5,000/- for transportation; Rs.5,000/- for extranourishment and Rs.1,36,000/- for medical expenses being reasonable warranting no interference. 25. In modification, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.5,94,000/- as under:- Loss of earning during the period of treatment : Rs. 18,000.00 Transport charges: Rs. 5,000.00 Extra-nourishment: Rs. 5,000.00 Medical expenses: Rs. 1,36,000.00 Attendant Charges : Rs. 10,000.00 Pain and Suffering : Rs. 50,000.00 Permanent Disability : Rs. 3,70,000.00 Total : Rs. 5,94,000.00 The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. and the same is maintained. 26. In the result, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.5277/2002 [CMA No.3018/2006] is enhanced to Rs.5,96,000/-. Likewise, the compensation awarded in M.C.O.P.No.5278/2002 [CMA No.3019/2006] is also enhanced to Rs.5,94,000/- payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of Claim Petitions and these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are partly allowed. It was stated before us that 2nd Respondent-Insurance Company has already deposited the entire compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal along with interest and the said amount is said to have been withdrawn by the respective Claimants. 2nd Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation i.e. Rs.2,80,000/- in MCOP.No.5277/2002 [CMA No.3018/2006] and Rs.2,55,000/-in MCOP.No.5278/2002 [CMA No.3019/2006] along with accrued interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the respective Claimants are entitled to withdraw the enhanced compensation along with accrued interest. 2nd Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation i.e. Rs.2,80,000/- in MCOP.No.5277/2002 [CMA No.3018/2006] and Rs.2,55,000/-in MCOP.No.5278/2002 [CMA No.3019/2006] along with accrued interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the respective Claimants are entitled to withdraw the enhanced compensation along with accrued interest. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in these Appeals.