Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant/Transport Corporation against the award dated 29.7.2004 made in MCOP No.340 of 2002 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judge) Salem. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The respondent/claimant met with an accident on 11.1.2002 at about 20.50 hours. While he was working as a Traffic Constable, a bus bearing Registration No.TN 27 N 1173 belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation came from the Chathiram in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules and regulations with a high speed and hit against the claimant. Due to the same, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. He claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. The appellant- State 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 appellants bus driver? 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 the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and awarded compensation of Rs.1,35,016/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of claim petition and the details of the same are as under:- Rs. Loss of income = 1,13,016/- Medical expenses = 11,500/- Pain and suffering & mental agony= 5,000/- Extra nourishment = 4,000/- Transport charges = 1,000/- Damages to clothes = 500/- Total 1,35,016/-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 award passed by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and also without basis and justification. Further the Tribunal ought not to have adopted multiplier method in injury case and 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 would submit that the Tribunal has considered all facts and circumstances of the case and awarded compensation which is just, fair and reasonable. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant would submit that the Tribunal has considered all facts and circumstances of the case and awarded compensation which is just, fair and reasonable. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the documents available on record. On the side of the claimant, the claimant has examined himself as P.W.1 and Dr.Chandramohan was examined as P.W.2 and documents Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. On behalf of the appellant, no one was examined and no document was marked to substantiate their claim. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of the wound certificate. Ex P3 is the copy of the Inspection report. Ex.P4 is the copy of Charge sheet; Ex P5 is the copy of the Judgment; Ex P6 is the Medical Bills; Ex P7 is the copy of wound certificate; Ex P8 is the discharge summary; Ex P9 is copy of the disability certificate; Ex P10 is X-Ray and Ex P11 is the salary certificate of the claimant. 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 and awarded compensation and it is a question of fact based on valid materials and evidence. Therefore, the same is confirmed. 6. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 33 years and he is a Traffic Constable in Salem City and is earning Rs.5,500/- per month. PW1-claimant has deposed that while the claimant was on duty in the Four Road signal on 11.1.2002 from 6.00p.m to 10.00p.m., to regulate the traffic at signal, a bus bearing registration No.TN-27-N-1173 belonging to the appellant herein, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant. The driver of the bus was also charge sheeted by TIW Salem City Police Station in Cr.No.31/2001 under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. Further in his evidence stated that due to the accident, the claimant sustained head injury and severe cut injury on lip and also contusion over the leg knees and head knees. The driver of the bus was also charge sheeted by TIW Salem City Police Station in Cr.No.31/2001 under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. Further in his evidence stated that due to the accident, the claimant sustained head injury and severe cut injury on lip and also contusion over the leg knees and head knees. Due to the same, he is unable to stand, sit and also unable to do work as before. P.W.2 Doctor who examined the injured determined the disability at 15%. Ex P9 is the disability certificate. Ex P8 is the discharge summary. It is also stated that initially he was taken treatment in the Government Hospital and later he took treatment in a private hospital. After taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has fixed the disability at 10% as against 15% determined by the Doctor and determined the monthly income of the claimant was Rs.5,540/- and computed the annual income at Rs.66,480/-( 5540 x 12). After taking into consideration of the age of the injured/claimant, the Tribunal has adopted multiplier of 17 and arrived at the loss of income at Rs.11,30,160/-( 66,480 x 17) and taking into consideration of 10% disability, the loss of income works out to Rs.1,13,016/-(Rs. 11,30,160 x 10/100). The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation vehemently contended that it is not a fit case for adopting the multiplier method. There is no serious injury which affecting the earning capacity of the injured. There is no concrete evidence to show that 10% of the disability affects the earning capacity of the injured and there is no finding of the Tribunal that 10% disability would certainly affects the earning capacity. Therefore, the correct method to be adopted the present case is only percentage method. It is also pertinent to note that the doctor P.W.2 determined the disability at 15%, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the disability at 10%. Therefore, 15% disability determined by the doctor P.W.2 has to be taken. Normally, this Courts award Rs.1,000 to Rs.2,000/-per percentage of disability. In this case, after taking into consideration, the nature of the injury and the evidence of P.W.2 Doctor and also Ex P9 disability certificate, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.2,000/-per percentage of disability and the loss of income works out to Rs.30,000/-( Rs.2,000 x 15). Normally, this Courts award Rs.1,000 to Rs.2,000/-per percentage of disability. In this case, after taking into consideration, the nature of the injury and the evidence of P.W.2 Doctor and also Ex P9 disability certificate, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.2,000/-per percentage of disability and the loss of income works out to Rs.30,000/-( Rs.2,000 x 15). Therefore, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of income due to 15% disability as against Rs.1,13,016/- awarded by the Tribunal. Ex P6 is the medical bills in which, it is stated that the medical expenditure incurred by the claimant is Rs.22,816/-. But the said bill was not duly authorised and signed by the concerned person. Therefore, after taking into consideration of the same, the Tribunal only awarded a sum of Rs.11,500/-towards medical bills as against Rs.22,816/-claimed by the claimant. There is no dispute that he was taken treatment in private hospital. Therefore, the Tribunal is correctly awarded a sum of Rs.11,500/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, the same is confirmed. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards pain and suffering and mental agony and the said amount is very low. Taking into consideration of the nature of the injury, this it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards pain and suffering as against Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards extra nourishment . The claimant was taken treatment in a private hospital. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.6000/- towards extra nourishment as against Rs.4,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards transport charges. But the said amount is very low. The claimant initially admitted in a Government Hospital,Salem and later he was taking treatment in a private hospital. Therefore, the claimant would have incurred expenditure towards transportation. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.2,500/-is awarded towards transport charges as against Rs.1,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.500/-towards damage to clothes which is reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards amenities. After taking into consideration, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded by this Court towards amenities. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.500/-towards damage to clothes which is reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards amenities. After taking into consideration, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded by this Court towards amenities. The Tribunal has fixed the rate of interest at 9% p.a. After taking into consideration of the date of accident, date of award and prevailing rate of interest during that period, I feel it is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Rs. Loss of income due to injuries 30,000/- Medical expenses 11,500/- Pain and suffering 10,000/- Extra Nourishment 6,000/- Transport charges 2,500/-Damages 500/- Amenities 5,000/- Total 65,500/- In the result, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.65,000/-with interest at 9% p.a.as against Rs.1,35,016/- awarded by the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation has stated that the entire award amount including interest and cost has already been deposited as per the order of this Court dated 19.1.2005. Under these circumstances, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified award amount of Rs.65,500/-with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition, 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 modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.