Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the insurance company against the award dated 28.02.2005 made in M.C.O.P No.33 of 2003 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge Court), Cheyyar. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: One injured Srinivasan met with motor traffic accident on 12.11.2002 at about 02.00 P.M. The injured was travelling as a pillion rider along with his friend Babu in a Bajaj 4s bearing registration No.TN 09E 4477. While he was nearing MBT Road near Perukkarambur Koortoad, a Hero Honda Splendour bearing registration No.TN 29 d 1147 came in a rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction and hit the Bajaj 4s. Due to the impact, the claimant was thrown away and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. He claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. The said Hero Honda was insured with the appellant insurance company who 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 Hero Honda 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 riding of the Hero Honda and awarded compensation of Rs.2,39,600/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim and the details of the same are as under:- Loss due to 30% disability = Rs.2,26,800 /- Medical expenses =Rs. 7,800/- Pain and suffering=Rs. 5,000/- Total = Rs.2,39,600/- Aggrieved by that award, the appellant insurance company has filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company 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 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P14 were marked. On the side of the appellant insurance company, R.W.1 one Jayapal, who is the officer of the insurance company was examined and no document was marked to substantiate their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. PW2 is Dr.Kannan Isac. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the wound certificate given by S.M.H Hospital, Ex.P3 is the ITI certificate of the claimant, Ex.P4 is the copy of the certificate relating ITI practice in Cheyyar, Ex.P5 is the copy of the certificate from TNSTC, Ex.P6 to P8 are the medical bills, Ex.P9 is the copy of the driving licence, Ex.P10 is the copy of policy, Ex.P11 is the copy of R.C Book, Ex.P12 is the copy of the both motor vehicle’s report, Ex.P13 is the copy of the final report, Ex.P14 is the permanent 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 riding of the Hero Honda 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 26 years. In his evidence, it is stated that he is completed ITI and also he is undergoing apprenticeship in TNSTC. He claimed that he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. In her evidence, it is further stated that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the Hero Honda and the rider of the Hero Honda was also charge sheeted by Kaveripakkam Police Station, in Cr.No.601/2002 under Sections 279, 338 of IPC. P.W.2. is Dr.Kannan Isac. In his evidence, it is stated that due to the accident, the injured sustained grievous injuries in his right leg palm head. P.W.2. is Dr.Kannan Isac. In his evidence, it is stated that due to the accident, the injured sustained grievous injuries in his right leg palm head. Due to the same, he could not stand, sit and walk and he is unable to do work as before. He examined the injured and determined the disability at 30%. Ex.P14 is the disability certificate. Ex.P2 is the wound certificate, in which, it is stated that there is injury on the right foot. Ex.P5 is the certificate given by TNSTC, in which, it is stated that he is earning Rs.3,500/-as apprentice. After taking into consideration of the above, the Tribunal adopted multiplier method and computed the loss of income due to 30% disability at Rs.2,26,800/-(Rs.42,000x18x30/100). 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 30% 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 a sum of Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. After taking into consideration of the nature of injury available on record, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.1,000/-per percentage of disability. Therefore, the loss of income due to 30% disability is works out to Rs.60,000/- (Rs.1000x30) as against Rs.2,26,800/ awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,800/- towards medical expenses. Ex.P6 to P8 are the series of medical bills and it is an actual expenditure. Therefore, the Tribunal correctly awarded a sum of Rs.7,800/-towards medical expenses which is reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards pain and suffering. After the accident, the injured was admitted in Walaja Hospital later, he was referred to S.M.H Hospital, Ranippettai, for better treatment and he was taken treatment in the hospital for 15 days. After taking into consideration of the same, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- under that head as against Rs.5,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal has also not awarded any sum towards nourishment, transport charges and loss of amenities. He was taking treatment in the hospital for 15 days as inpatient and after discharge also, he was taking treatment as outpatient. Further, the Tribunal has also not awarded any sum towards nourishment, transport charges and loss of amenities. He was taking treatment in the hospital for 15 days as inpatient and after discharge also, he was taking treatment as outpatient. After taking into consideration of the same, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- each, towards nourishment, transport charges and loss of amenities. 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 30% disability= Rs. 60,000/- Medical expenses = Rs. 7,800/- Pain and suffering = Rs. 15,000/- Nourishment = Rs. 5,000/- Transport charges = Rs. 5,000/- Loss of amenities = Rs. 5,000/- Total = Rs.97,800 /- 7. In the result, the claimant is entitled to modified compensation of Rs.97,800/-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim as against Rs.2,39,600/- 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 26.09.2005 and the claimant also permitted to withdraw a consolidated sum of Rs.60,000/-. Under these circumstances, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified compensation of Rs.97,800/-with interest @ 9% per annum, less the amount already withdrawn, on making proper application. The appellant insurance company is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount on making proper application. 8. With the above modifications, the appeal is disposed of. No costs.