Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant-Transport Corporation against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.02.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.354 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional Sub Judge) Salem. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The injured Padmavathy met with motor vehicle accident on 18.11.1999 at about 3.00 p.m. While the said injured was going to Salem Town Old Bus stand for buying flowers, a bus bearing registration No.TN.27.N.0612, Route No.5, belonging to the appellant- Transport Corporation came from behind in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and hit the injured. Due to the impact, the injured sustained grievous injuries and fracture. She claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The appellant-Transport Corporation 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 driver of the bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation or not? 2. What is the compensation, the claimant is entitled to? 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 compensation of Rs.2,34,800/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of claim petition and the details of the same are as under:- Medical Expenses=Rs. 50,000/- Pain and sufferings=Rs. 5,000/- Extra Nourishment=Rs. 5,000/- Transport charges=Rs. 10,000/-Damage to clothe=Rs. 1,000/- Loss of earning=Rs.1,63,800/- Total=Rs.2,34,800/- Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation questioned only the quantum of the award passed by the Tribunal and vehemently contended that the award passed by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, and also without any basis and justification. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same should be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation and it is based on valid materials and evidence. It is a question of fact and it is not a perverse order. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same should be confirmed. 5. It is a question of fact and it is not a perverse order. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same should be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel and perused the materials available on record. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P17 were marked. On the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation one Theivadurai, who is the conductor of the bus was examined and no document was marked to substantiate their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 Chandra, is the attender. PW.3 Chellammal is the attender. PW.4 Dr.Rajamanickam was also examined. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of the representation to issue a charge sheet. Ex.P3 is the wound certificate. Ex.P4 is the medical bill of Rs.31,200/-. Ex.P5 is the medical bill of Rs.6,300/-. Ex.P6 is the medical receipts. Ex.P7 is the Medical bills. Ex.P8 is the certificate of the Village Administrative Officer. Ex.P9 is the letter of the Kallakurichi marketing sales depot. Ex.P10 is the receipt of Rs.70/-, given by South Arcot Market committee. Ex.P11 is the permit of sales market. Ex.P12 to Ex.P14 are the certificate of the Village Administrative Officer. Ex.P15 is the receipt of Rs.70/- given by marketing committee. Ex.P16 is the medical receipts and medical bills. Ex.P17 is the disability certificate. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. It is a question of fact. The finding is based on valid materials and therefore the same is confirmed. 6. At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 48 years. P.W.1 is claimant. In her evidence, it is stated that she is the owner of the petty shop, rice merchant and commission agency. She claimed that she was earning a sum of Rs.12,500/- per month and further stated that only the driver of the bus caused the accident and the driver of the bus was also charge sheeted by Salem Town Police Station Limit, Traffic investigation wing, in Crime No.593/1999 under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC. She claimed that she was earning a sum of Rs.12,500/- per month and further stated that only the driver of the bus caused the accident and the driver of the bus was also charge sheeted by Salem Town Police Station Limit, Traffic investigation wing, in Crime No.593/1999 under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained fracture in the left leg, cut injury on left leg, crush injury of left leg, injury on hip and multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, she was admitted in Govt M.K.M.C. Hospital, Salem and also Sellappa Hospital, Gugai, Salem-6. P.W.4 Dr.Rajamanickam, who examined the injured, determined the disability at 40%. Ex.P17 is the Disability Certificate. In his evidence, it is stated that due to the injury, she is unable to stand, sit, bend and cannot lift any heavy articles. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the attender attended the injured in hospital as well as the injureds house. Even though before the Tribunal, the claimant claimed that she was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-per month and also filed Exs.P8 to P15 in support of her claim, the Tribunal without considering the same, fixed the monthly income of the injured at Rs.3,000/-on the ground that there is no concrete evidence available on record to prove that the claimant was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-to Rs.15,000/- per month. The annual income of the injured was arrived at Rs.36,000/-(3,000X12). After taking into consideration of the age of the injured, the Tribunal adopted multiplier 13 and arrived at the loss due to 35% disability at Rs.1,63,800/-(36,000X13x35/100). The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that even though P.W.4 doctor determined the disability at 40%, the Tribunal fixed the disability at 35% and further contended that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier method in the present case. Once the experts determined the disability percentage, the Tribunal could not reduce the same without adducing concrete evidence. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to determine the disability at 40%. There is no evidence available on record to show that 40% disability affects the earning capacity of the claimant. Therefore, the correct method to be adopted in the present case is only percentage method. Normally, Courts award a sum of Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/-per percentage of disability. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to determine the disability at 40%. There is no evidence available on record to show that 40% disability affects the earning capacity of the claimant. Therefore, the correct method to be adopted in the present case is only percentage method. Normally, Courts award a sum of Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/-per percentage of disability. After taking into consideration of the nature of injury as stated above, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.2000/-per percentage of disability. If, Rs.2,000/- awarded, the loss due to 40% disability works out to Rs.80,000/-(Rs.2,000x40). Therefore, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards the loss due to 40% disability as against Rs.1,63,800/-awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-towards medical expenses. Exs.P4 and P5 are the series of medical bills. It is actual expenditure. There is no dispute that the claimant was taken treatment in G.M.K.M.C Hospital Salem and also Sellappa Hospital, Gugai, Salem-6. Therefore, the Tribunal correctly awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-towards medical bills which is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards pain and sufferings, and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. After taking into consideration of the nature of injuries as stated above and the period of treatment, the award made under these heads are reasonable and the same are confirmed. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges and Rs.1,000/-towards damages to clothe. After taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the award of Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges and Rs.1,000/-towards damages to clothe are very reasonable and the same are confirmed. The Tribunal awarded interest of 9% p.a. After taking into consideration of the date of accident, date of award and the prevailing rate of interest during that period the interest of 9%, awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Medical expenses=Rs. 50,000/- Pain and sufferings=Rs. 5,000/- Extra Nourishment=Rs. 5,000/- Transport charges=Rs. 10,000/-Damage to clothe=Rs. 1,000/- Loss due to 40% disability=Rs. 80,000/- Total=Rs.1,51,000/- 7. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.1,51,000/-with interest at 9% p.a from the date of claim petition. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Medical expenses=Rs. 50,000/- Pain and sufferings=Rs. 5,000/- Extra Nourishment=Rs. 5,000/- Transport charges=Rs. 10,000/-Damage to clothe=Rs. 1,000/- Loss due to 40% disability=Rs. 80,000/- Total=Rs.1,51,000/- 7. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.1,51,000/-with interest at 9% p.a from the date of claim petition. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant-Transport Corporation that the entire award amount has already been deposited. Under these circumstances, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified compensation of Rs.1,51,000/-with interest at 9% p.a., less the amount already withdrawn, on making proper application. The appellant-Transport Corporation is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount, on making proper application. 8. With the above modifications, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.