Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant insurance company against the award dated 05.04.2004 made in M.C.O.P No.139 of 2002 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Judge) at Ponneri. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: One injured Gandhimadhi met with motor traffic accident on 07.04.2001 at about 10.15.A.M. The said injured was travelling in a Mahindra Van bearing registration No.TN-20-2385 from Avadi to Tiruvannamalai. While the Mahindra Van proceeding in G.S.T road, a Tata Sumo bearing registration No.AP-37 C-9669 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Mahindra Van. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained grevious injuries. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. The said Tata Sumo 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 Tata Sumo or not? 2. What is the compesation 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 driver of the Tata Sumo and awarded compensation of Rs.4,58,200/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss due to 60% disability=Rs.3,67,200/- Pain and Suffering =Rs. 10,000/- Nourishment =Rs. 10,000/- Transportation=Rs. 5,000/- Damgae to clothe=Rs. 1,000/- Medical expenses=Rs. 40,000/- Future medial expenses=Rs. 25,000/- Total= Rs.4,58,200/- 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 contended 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 the 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. 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 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P14 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.Thiagarajan. Ex.P1 dated 07.04.2001 is the First Information Report. Ex.P2 dated 07.04.2001 is the accident register, Ex.P3 dated 09.04.2001 is the motor vehicle inspectors report, Ex.P4 is the insurance certificate, Ex.P5 dated 21.08.2001 is the discharge summary, Ex.P6 dated 01.05.2002 is the discharge summary, Ex.P7 dated 07.07.2002 is the discharge summary given by Ramachandra Hospital, Ex.P8 dated 17.12.2001 is the series of medical bills, Ex.P9 is the photos and negatives, Ex.P10 is X-ray, Ex.P11 is the identity card, Ex.P12 is the salary certificate, Ex.P13 dated 09.03.2004 is the leave certificate, Ex.P14 dated 10.02.2004 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 Tata Sumo. 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 accident, the injured was aged about 33 years. P.W.1 is the claimant. In her evidence, it is stated that she is working as Upper Division Clerk in CVRTE, Avadi. She claimed that she was earning Rs.5,000/-per month and further stated that only the driver of the Tata Sumo caused the accident and the driver of the Tata Sumo was also charge sheeted by G1-Madurantakam Police Station in Cr.No.256/01 under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. In her evidence, it is further stated that due to the accident, she sustained fracture in right hand and due to the same, she is unable to use the right hand and could not work as before. In her evidence, it is further stated that due to the accident, she sustained fracture in right hand and due to the same, she is unable to use the right hand and could not work as before. After the accident, she was admitted in Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai, and later, she was admitted in Ramachandra Hospital, Porur, Chennai, for better treatment. Due to the fracture in her right hand, she undergone a surgery and plates were fixed with screws. P.W.2 is Dr.Thiagarajan who examined the claimant. He determined the disability at 80%. In his evidence, it is stated that due to the accident, the right hand of the claimant was fractured and there is a malunion of bones and also there is a stiffness of muscles and due to the same, she cannot bend her right hand more than 80 degree. Therefore, the disability was fixed at 35% and further fracture of ulna and deep scar and due to the same, he is unable to bend her left hand more than 60 degrees and due to the same, he is unable to move the fingers freely. Therefore, the disability was fixed at 45% and the total disability was fixed at 80%. But the Tribunal fixed the disability at 60% without giving any reason. After taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal adopted multiplier method. The monthly income of the injured was fixed at Rs.3,000/-and the annual income of the injured works out to Rs.36,000/-. After taking into consideration of the age of the injured, the Tribunal adopted multiplier 17 and arrived at the loss of income at Rs.3,67,200/-(Rs.36,000x17x60/100). Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that it is not the fit case for adopting multiplier. The injured is continued to be in the employment and due to the injury there was no de-promotion and the promotional avenues also not affected. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that 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 injuries available on record, it is reasonable to award Rs.2,000/-per percentage of disability. Further, the Tribunal is wrong in reducing the disability. Once the disability percentage fixed by experts, the same could not reduce without adducing any concrete evidence. 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 injuries available on record, it is reasonable to award Rs.2,000/-per percentage of disability. Further, the Tribunal is wrong in reducing the disability. Once the disability percentage fixed by experts, the same could not reduce without adducing any concrete evidence. Therefore, the disability is fixed at 80% determined by P.W.2 doctor. If, Rs.2,000/-is awarded, the loss due to 80% disability is works out to Rs.1,60,000/-(Rs.2000x80). Therefore, the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,60,000/-towards loss due to 80% disability as against Rs.3,67,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. After taking into consideration of the nature of injuries available on record and the evidence of P.W.2 doctor as well as the disability certificate, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- as against Rs.10,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards nourishment. After taking into consideration of the nature of injury and she was taken treatment in various hospital, the award amount of Rs.10,000/-towards nourishment is reasonable and the same is confirmed. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation which is very low and meagre. After the accident, she was admitted in Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai, and later, she was admitted in Ramachandra Hospital, Porur, Chennai, where, she was taken treatment for a period of six months as inpatient. Taking into consideration of the same, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation as against Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/-towards damage to clothe which is reasonable and the same is confirmed. However, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses. Ex.P5 to 7, and P13 are the discharge summaries. Ex.P8 is the series of medical bills in which, it is stated that the medical expenses incurred at Rs.44,364/-. It is an actual expenditure. As per Ex.P8, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards medical bills as against Rs.40,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-towards future medical expenses. After taking into consideration of the nature of injuries available on record, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards future medical expenses. As per Ex.P8, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards medical bills as against Rs.40,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-towards future medical expenses. After taking into consideration of the nature of injuries available on record, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards future medical expenses. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards loss of amenities and attendant charges. The claimant was in the hospital for a period of six months as inpatient and due to the fracture, he was also taking treatment as outpatient. Due to the fracture, there was a malunion and disfigurement of hand. After taking into consideration of the same, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities and a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards attendant charges. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards loss of income during treatment period. She was in the hospital for a period of six months certainly and she would not have attended the work during that period. Taking into consideration of the same, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.9000/-towards loss of income during treatment period. The Tribunal awarded interest of 9% per annum. After taking into consideration of the date of accident, date of award and the prevailing rate of interest during that period, it is reasonable to award interest @ 7.5% per annum. The modified amount of the compensation are as under: Loss due to 80% disability= Rs.1,60,000/- Pain and suffering = Rs. 25,000/-Nourishment= Rs. 10,000/- Transportation= Rs. 10,000/-Damage to clothe= Rs. 1,000/-Medical expenses= Rs. 45,000/-Attendant charges= Rs. 10,000/-Loss of amenities= Rs. 15,000/-Future medical expenses= Rs. 15,000/- Loss of income during treatment period= Rs. 9,000/- Total= Rs.3,00,000/- 7. In the result, the claimant is entitled to modified compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-with interest @ 7.5% 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 06.12.2005 and the claimant was also permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Under these circumstances, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% 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. Under these circumstances, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% 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.