Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the transport corporation against the award dated 24.09.2004 made in M.C.O.P No.251 of 2004 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate No-2), Krishnagiri. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: One injured Nanjammal met with motor traffic accident on 07.04.2002 at about 15.30 hours. The injured was walking at Munidevi Nagar on the extreme left side of the road after purchasing flowers. While she was nearing Vinayagar Koil in Hosur to Basthi Main Road, a bus bearing registration No.TN/29/N-0838 came in a rash and negligent manner from back side and hit the injured. Due to the impact, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. She claimed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. 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 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 bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,25,300/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim and the details of the same are as under:- Loss due to 40% disability=Rs. 1,87,200/- Grievous injuries=Rs. 25,000/- Medical expenses=Rs. 2,000/- Pain and suffering=Rs. 5,000/- Nourishment=Rs. 3,000/- Transportation=Rs. 1,500/- Scan expenses=Rs. 1,600/- Total=Rs. 2,25,300/- 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 and vehemently contented that the award passed by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant compensation and also without any basis and justification. Further, the Tribunal wrongly adopted multiplier method in injury case. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same should 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 just, fair and reasonable compensation is based on valid materials and evidence. It is a question of fact and it is not a perverse order. 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 just, fair and reasonable compensation 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. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. On the side of the appellant insurance company, R.W.1 one Krishnan, who is the driver of the bus was examined and no document was marked to substantiate their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is Dr.Shankar. P.W.3 is Dr.Ashok Kumar. Ex.P1 dated 09.09.2004 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 dated 09.09.2004 is the wound certificate, Ex.P3 dated 15.09.2004 is the disability certificate, Ex.P4 dated 15.09.2004 is the scan receipt, Ex.P5 dated 15.09.2004 is the disability certificate were marked. After considering the above 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 bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation and awarded compensation. It is a question of fact. The finding is based on valid materials and evidence and therefore, the same is confirmed. 6. At the time of the accident, the injured was aged about 47 years. In her evidence, it is stated that she is a flower vendor and she claimed that she was earning Rs.4,000/-per month. In her evidence, it is further stated that only the driver of the bus caused the accident and the driver of the bus was also charge sheeted by Hosur Traffic Police Station, in Cr.No.53/2002 under Sections 279, 337 of IPC. Due to the accident, she sustained the following injuries: 1. Contusion of 2 x 2 cm. fracture of clavicle 2. Contusion of 2 x 2 cm. occipital region X-ray i) Fracture right clavicle ii) left clavicle. 3. Multiple injuries all over the body. Opinion: Both the injuries are grievous. After the accident, the injured was admitted in Government Hospital, Hosur, later, she was referred to private hospital, Hosur. P.W.2 is Dr.Shankar who examined the claimant on 10.09.2004. Contusion of 2 x 2 cm. occipital region X-ray i) Fracture right clavicle ii) left clavicle. 3. Multiple injuries all over the body. Opinion: Both the injuries are grievous. After the accident, the injured was admitted in Government Hospital, Hosur, later, she was referred to private hospital, Hosur. P.W.2 is Dr.Shankar who examined the claimant on 10.09.2004. In his evidence, it is stated that due to the injury, she is getting head ache and also giddiness, loss of memory and she is unable to lift articles by right hand. Ex.P4 is the CT Scan. He examined the claimant and determined the disability at 30%. P.W.3 is another doctor Ashok Kumar who also examined the injured on 11.09.2004. In his evidence, it is stated that there is a fracture in right shoulder and the claimant was taking treatment in Government Hospital, Hosur, and further stated that there is a restricted movement to the extent of 10 degree in respect of right shoulder and also due to the same, he is unable to lift the article by right hand. He determined the disability at 30%. Ex.P5 is the disability certificate. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal was of the view that 60% disability is excessive and therefore reduced the same at 40%. There is no documentary evidence available on record to show that the claimant was earning Rs.4,000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.3,000/- and determined the annual income at Rs.36,000/-. After taking into consideration of the age of the injured, the Tribunal adopted multiplier ‘13’ and arrived at the loss of income due to 40% disability at Rs.1,87,000/-(Rs.36,000x13x40/100) and also the Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs.25,000/-towards disability. In the present case, all are fracture on both clavicle bone. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted multiplier method in injury case and there is no evidence available on record to show that the 40% disability affects the earning capacity of the injured. Therefore, the correct method to be adopted in the present case is only percentage method. Normally, Courts award Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. Further, the Tribunal is wrong in reducing the disability percentage from 60 to 40, once the experts determined the disability, the same cannot be reduced without concrete evidence. Therefore, the correct method to be adopted in the present case is only percentage method. Normally, Courts award Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. Further, the Tribunal is wrong in reducing the disability percentage from 60 to 40, once the experts determined the disability, the same cannot be reduced without concrete evidence. After taking into consideration of the above discussions and the nature of injury available on record, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. Therefore, the loss of income due to 60% disability is works out to Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.2000x60) as against Rs.1,87,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards grievous injuries, which is unwarranted and therefore the same is deleted. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. After taking into consideration of the nature of injuries stated above, the award amount of Rs.5,000/- which is very low and meagre and it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering as against Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3000/- towards nourishment which is very low and meagre and it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards nourishment as against Rs.3,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards medical expenses and a further sum of Rs.1,600/- towards scanning expenses. They are actual expenditure. Therefore, the Tribunal correctly awarded the amount under those heads and the same are confirmed. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,500/-for transportation as against the claim of the claimant Rs.2,000/-. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards transportation as against Rs.1,500/-awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards loss of amenities and attendant charges. After taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to award a consolidated sum of Rs.5,000/-under these heads. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards loss of income during treatment period. Taking into consideration of the nature of injuries and the period of treatment, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.4,500/- under that head. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal is 9% per annum. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards loss of income during treatment period. Taking into consideration of the nature of injuries and the period of treatment, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.4,500/- under that head. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal is 9% per annum. After taking into consideration of the date of accident, date of award and the prevailing rate of interest during that period, the interest rate awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and therefore the same is confirmed. The modified amount of the compensation are as under: Loss due to 60% disability= Rs.1,20,000/- Medical expenses= Rs. 2,000/-Pain and suffering= Rs. 15,000/-Nourishment = Rs. 5,000/- Transport charges= Rs. 2,000/- Loss of amenities and Attendant charges= Rs. 5,000/-Loss of income during Treatment period= Rs. 4,500/-Scanning expenses= Rs. 1,600/ Total= Rs.1,55,100 /- 7. In the result, the claimant is entitled to modified compensation of Rs.1,55,100/-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim as against Rs.2,25,300/- awarded by the Tribunal. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company that the entire award amount has already been deposited by the Court order dated 11.08.2005. Under these circumstances, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified compensation of Rs.1,55,100/-with interest @ 9% per annum, 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 appeal is disposed of. No costs.