Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant/Transport Corporation against the award dated 30.6.2003 made in MCOP No.782 of 2002 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) Nagapattinam. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The respondent-claimant met with an accident on 4.12.2001 at about 8.30p.m. The respondent/claimant was riding his TVS Susuki motor bike bearing Registration No.TN-49-Z-6309 on Tanjore Main Road from east to west,one Manickam along with his friend. At that time, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-49-N-0842 belonging to the appellant driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant. Due to which, both the rider and the pillion rider were thrown out of the bike and fell on the road and the claimant sustained fractures and grievous injuries all over the body and the pillion rider died on the spot. Immediately the claimant was admitted in the Vinodhagan Memorial Private Hospital, Tanjore. He claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. The appellant-Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Who is responsible for the accident? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to any claim? If so, how much?" After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,14,357/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Rs. Permanent disability at 31% 2,05,534/- Medical expenses 3,823/- Pain and suffering 5,000/- Total Rs. 2,14,357/- 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 quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification. The Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier method in the case of injury and awarded a compensation towards loss of income at 31% disability at Rs.2,05,534, which is on the higher side and that therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. The Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier method in the case of injury and awarded a compensation towards loss of income at 31% disability at Rs.2,05,534, which is on the higher side and that 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 claimant submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and awarded a compensation which is just fair and reasonable and hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the documents available on record. On the side of the claimant, the claimant was examined as P.W.2 and Dr.Rajagopalan was examined as P.W.3 and documents Exs.P1 to 16 were marked. On the side of the respondent, one Mr.Kumar, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked to support their claim. Ex.P1 dated 4.12.2001 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P3 dated 5.12.2001 is the copy of Inspection report; Ex P4 dated 4.12.2001 is the copy of wound certificate; Ex P5 dated 11.12.2001 is the Inspection report of the two wheeler ; Ex P6(series) dated 27.12.2001 is the X-Ray; Ex P7 is the discharge summary ; Ex P8 is driving licence of P.W.2; Ex P9 is the Outpatient chit given by the private hospital; Ex P10 is the Invoices given by the Hospital; Ex P11 is account of Ex P10; Ex P12 is the photocopy relating to P.W.2 working as Contractor; Ex P13 is the registered photocopy relating to P.W.2 working as contractor; Ex P14 is the proceedings of the Ammapettai Panchayat Union with regard to registration of P.W.2 working as contractor; Ex P15 X-Ray and Ex P16 is disability certificate. 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 and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 43 years. He is working as Engineering Contractor and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. 6. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 43 years. He is working as Engineering Contractor and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. PW2-claimant has deposed that while, he was proceeding in his TVS Susuki motor bike along with his friend, who is the pillion rider bearing Registration No.TN-49-Z-6309 on Tanjore Main Road from east to west, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-49-N-0842 belonging to the appellant driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant. The driver of the bus was also charge sheeted by Needamangalam Police Station under Sections 279 337 and 304(A) IPC in Cr.No.190/2001. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained injuries on the head and all over the body and fracture on his right wrist and right leg. Immediately he was admitted in Vinodhagan Private Hospital for 20 days as inpatient and till date he is taking treatment as outpatient. Further in his evidence, he deposed that due to fracture in the right wrist, he could not write and due to fracture in the right leg, he could not walk and he is unable to ride his cycle as before. Ex P4 is the wound certificate given by P.W.3 Dr.P.Rajagopalan, who determined the disability at 31%. Ex P16 is the disability certificate and Ex P15 is X Ray. The Doctor, in his evidence has stated that the injured sustained fracture in the right wrist and also other injuries. Due to the same, he is unable to move his right wrist and he is getting giddiness very often. However, no documents were filed to prove the income of the claimant. Even though, the claimant stated that he paid income tax, no document has been filed to prove the same. After taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances the case and the nature of the business, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the claimant is Rs.6,000/-and also accepted the disability at 31%. Following the Workmens Compensation Act, the Tribunal has determined the loss of income at Rs.2,05,534/-(60/100 x 6000 x 184.17 x 31/100). The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Transport Corporation vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have followed the principles as per the Workmens Compensation Act while awarding compensation towards loss of income, no concrete evidence is available on record to show that 31% disability affects the future earning capacity of the claimant. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Transport Corporation vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have followed the principles as per the Workmens Compensation Act while awarding compensation towards loss of income, no concrete evidence is available on record to show that 31% disability affects the future earning capacity of the claimant. Normally, the Courts award a sum of Rs.1000/- to Rs 2,000/- per percentage of disability. If Rs.2000/- is awarded per centage of disability, the award amount works out to Rs.62,000/-(31% x 2000) towards permanent disability as against the sum of Rs.2,05,534/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,823/-towards medical expenses. The same is rounded off to Rs.4,000/- and awarded under this head. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards pain and suffering. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is very low. After taking into consideration, the nature of injury and fracture and also he took treatment for a period of 20 days in a private hospital as inpatient, I feel that it would be reasonable to award Rs.15,000/-under this head as against Rs.5,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of income during treatment period. In the present case, the claimant was admitted in the hospital for 20 days as inpatient and after discharge he would have taken treatment. Hence,it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period . The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards Transport Charges, extra nourishment and loss of amenities. After taking into consideration,the nature of injury sustained and the claimant took treatment in a private hospital, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards extra nourishment and a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards transport charges and 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, which I feel is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Rs. Disability 31% x Rs.2,000 62,000/- Pain and Suffering 15,000/- Medical expenses 4,000/- Loss of income for one month 6,000/- Transport charges 5,000/- Extra nourishment 5,000/- Loss of amenities 10,000/- Total 1,07,000/-Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.1,07,000/-as against the compensation of Rs.2,14,357/- awarded by the Tribunal. 7. Disability 31% x Rs.2,000 62,000/- Pain and Suffering 15,000/- Medical expenses 4,000/- Loss of income for one month 6,000/- Transport charges 5,000/- Extra nourishment 5,000/- Loss of amenities 10,000/- Total 1,07,000/-Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.1,07,000/-as against the compensation of Rs.2,14,357/- awarded by the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation has submitted that already entire award amount with interest has been deposited as per order of this Court and the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified award amount of Rs.1,07,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount, if any, 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 modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.