Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the insurance company against the award dated 29.09.2004 made in M.C.O.P No.574 of 2001 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judicial Magistrate No.II Court), Krishnagiri. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: One injured Muniappa met with motor traffic accident on 14.10.2000 at about 09.00 P.M. The injured along with others were travelling in the Tractor & Trailer bearing registration No.TN-29-W-8431 from Hosur towards Mugulappalli. While the driver of the Tractor & Trailer drove the vehicle slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road, a J.P.T Bus bearing registration No.TN-29-S-0009 belonging to the 2nd respondent came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and hit the Tractor & Trailer. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was admitted in Government Hospital, Hosur. He claimed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation. The said bus was insured with the appellant insurance company who 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 compensation? 3. What is the other relief? 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.1,65,775/- 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.1,20,960 /- Greivous injuries =Rs. 25,000/- Pain and suffering =Rs. 5,000/- Extra nourishment =Rs. 3,000/- Medical expenses =Rs. 9,815/- Transportation =Rs. 2,000/-Total =Rs.1,65,775/- 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 and also without any basis and justification. Further, the Tribunal ought not to have 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. Further, the Tribunal ought not to have 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 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. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. On the side of the appellant insurance company, no one was examined and no document was marked to substantiate their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is Dr.Shankar, who is the Neurologist. P.W.3 is Dr.Shunmugam. Ex.P1 dated 07.09.2004 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 dated 07.09.2004 is the copy of the wound certificate, Ex.P3 dated 07.09.2004 is the discharge summary, Ex.P4 dated 07.09.2004 is the medical bills, Ex.P5 dated 07.09.2004 is the policy, Ex.P6 dated 07.09.2004 is the disability certificate given by P.W.2 doctor, Ex.P7 dated 07.09.2004 is the scan report, Ex.P8 dated 24.09.2004 is the disability certificate given by P.W.3 doctor 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 driver of the bus 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 deceased was aged about 23 years. P.W.1 is the claimant. In his evidence, it is stated that he was working as a cooly and he claimed that he was earning a sum of Rs.4,500/-per month. In his evidence, it is further stated that only the driver of the bus caused the accident and the driver was also charge sheeted by Bagalur Police Station, Dharmapuri District, in Cr.No.324/2000 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. In his evidence, it is further stated that only the driver of the bus caused the accident and the driver was also charge sheeted by Bagalur Police Station, Dharmapuri District, in Cr.No.324/2000 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. After the accident, immediately he was admitted in Government Hospital, Hosur, and later, he was referred to Nimhans Hospital, Bangalore, and he was also taken treatment in St.Johns Hospital, Bangalore. He was in the hospital for a period of 10 days as inpatient and after discharge also, he was taking treatment as outpatient. Due to the accident, he sustained head injury and grievous injuries all over the body and due to the same, he was getting giddiness very often and unable to do work as before. P.W.2 is Dr.Shankar, who is the Neurologist. He examined the claimant and determined the disability at 30%. Ex.P6 is the disability certificate given by him. In his evidence, it is stated that due to the injuries, the claimant getting giddiness and also severe pain in head. P.W.3 is Dr.Shunmugam, who also examined the claimant and determined the disability at 15%. In his evidence, it is stated that due to the accident, the claimant sustained following injuries: 1) A SUTTURED LACERATED WOUND OVER RIGHT FRONTAL REGION FROM HARILINE TO OUTER ANGLE OFRIGHT EYE. 6 c.m. 2) SUITURED LACERATED WOUND ON RIGHT CHEEK. 1 C.M. LACERATION ON LATERAL RIGHT ANGLE OF MOUTH. 3) SUITURED WOUND ON UPPER ON LATERAL ASPECT LIP ON RIGHT LATERAL ASPECT. FRACTURE RIGHT FRONTAL AND RIGHT, LATERAL WACE OF ORBIT. After taking into consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,100/-and determined the annual income at Rs.25,200/-. After taking into consideration of the age of the injured, the Tribunal adopted multiplier 16 and arrived at the loss of income due to 30% disability at Rs.1,20,960/- (Rs.25,200x16x30). Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted multiplier method in injury case. In the present case, there is no evidence available on record, to show that 45% 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. In the present case, there is no evidence available on record, to show that 45% 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 oral and documentary evidence, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.2,000/-per percentage of disability. However, the Tribunal ought not to have reduced the disability at 30% without any concrete evidence. Therefore, it is reasonable to fix the disability at 45% determined by both P.W.2 as well as P.W.3 doctors and the loss due to 45% disability is works out to Rs.90,000/-(Rs.2,000x45). Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards grievous injuries. The Tribunal after awarding a sum of Rs.1,20,960/- towards loss due to 30% disability, ought not to have awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards grievous injuries. Therefore, the award towards grievous injuries is unwarranted and 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, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- as against Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment. There is no dispute that there is a disability at 45% and the claimant was also taken treatment in Government Hospital, Hosur, and later, he was referred to Nimhans Hospital, Bangalore, and he was also taken treatment in St.Johns Hospital, Bangalore, and he was in the hospital for a period of 10 days as inpatient. Taking into consideration of the above, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment as against Rs.3,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards transportation. The claimant was taking treatment in three different hospital, two in Bangalore and one in Hosur, naturally, he would have incurred expenditure for transportation. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/-as against Rs.2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.9,815/- towards medical expenses. Ex.P4 is the series of medical bills. It is an actual expenditure. Therefore, the Tribunal correctly awarded a sum of Rs.9,815/-towards medical expenses, which is reasonable and the same is confirmed. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/-as against Rs.2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.9,815/- towards medical expenses. Ex.P4 is the series of medical bills. It is an actual expenditure. Therefore, the Tribunal correctly awarded a sum of Rs.9,815/-towards medical expenses, which is reasonable and the same is confirmed. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards loss of income during treatment period. The claimant was taking treatment in three different hospital totally, he was taken treatment for a period of five months as inpatient and after discharge also, he was taking treatment as outpatient. Therefore, certainly he would not have attended the work for a period of five months. Taking into consideration of the above, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,500/-(Rs.2,100x5) towards loss of income during treatment period. 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 45% disability = Rs. 90,000/- Pain and suffering = Rs. 20,000/- Extra nourishment = Rs. 10,000/- Medical expenses = Rs. 9,815/- Transport charges = Rs. 10,000/- Loss of income during treatment period = Rs. 10,500/- Total = Rs.1,50,315/- 7. The award amount of Rs.1,50,315/- is rounded off to Rs.1,50,000/-. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to modified compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition. 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 28.06.2005 and the claimant was also permitted to withdraw Rs.75,000/- with accrued interest. Under these circumstances, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-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.