Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant insurance company against the award dated 23.06.2005 made in M.C.O.P No.549 of 2002 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Prl Subordinate Court, Salem. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: One injured Shanmugam met with motor traffic accident on 19.8.2001 at about 09.00 P.M. The said injured was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.TNS 7709 along with his friend Nadeesha as a pillion rider from Steel Plant Quarters to Namakkal for the purpose of visiting his relatives. While they were nearing Mallur Erikkarai, a State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No.TSTC TN 55 N 172 came from Salem to Trichy and had overtaken the motor cycle, at that time, a Tempo Van bearing registration No.TN 37 1844 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bus and went out of the control and also hit the motor cycle. Due to the impact, both the rider as well as pillion rider were thrown out and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, the claimant was admitted in Salem Government Hospital. He claimed a sum of Rs.22,93,000/- as compensation. The said Tempo Van 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 Tempo Van 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 driver of the Tempo Van and awarded compensation of Rs.9,85,120/-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of income=Rs.9,75,120/- Pain and suffering =Rs. 5,000/- Nourishment=Rs. 4,000/- Transport charges=Rs. 750/- Damage to cloth =Rs. 250/- Total=Rs. 9,85,120/- 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. 750/- Damage to cloth =Rs. 250/- Total=Rs. 9,85,120/- 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, it was contended that the Tribunal is wrong in adopting multiplier method in injury case and vehemently contended that the injured is continued to be in the employment. Therefore, the multiplier method should not be adopted. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same should be set aside. 4. Inspite of notice served on the respondents and their names are also appeared in the cause-list, there is no representation on their behalf either in person or through pleader. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P17 were marked. On the side of the appellant insurance company, R.W.1 one Natesan, who is the Senior Manager in Salem Steel Corporation was examined and no document was marked to substantiate their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant, P.W.2 is one Nadeesha, who is the pillion rider of the motor cycle, P.W.3 is Dr.T.N.Muralidharan, who is the Neurologist, P.W.4 is Dr.T.S.Vasu, who is the Ophthalmologist, P.W.5 Dr.Sundararajan were examined. Ex.P1 is the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the wound certificate, Ex.P3 is the charge-sheet, Ex.P4 is the report of the motor vehicles inspector, Ex.P5 is the judgment copy, Ex.P6 is the accident register, Ex.P7 is the claimants treatment records, Ex.P8 is the disability certificate, Ex.P9 is the salary certificate, Ex.P10 is the PAN card, Ex.P11 is the income-tax form, Ex.P12 is the salary certificate of P.W.2, Ex.P13 is the PAN card of P.W.2, Ex.P14 is the income-tax form, Ex.P15 is the disability certificate, Ex.P16 is the Scan, Ex.P17 is X-ray 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 Tempo Van. 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 32 years. P.W.1 is the claimant. 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 32 years. P.W.1 is the claimant. In his evidence, it is stated that he is working as a Senior Operator in Salem Steel Plant, Salem, and he claimed that he was earning a sum of Rs.10,500/-per month. In his evidence, it is further stated that only the driver of the Tempo Van caused the accident and the driver was also charge sheeted by Mallur Police Station, in Cr.No.630/2001. Due to the accident, he sustained head injury resulting in Opticatrophy of right eye and consequent vision in the right eye is NIL. After the accident, immediately he was admitted in Government Hospital, Salem, and later, he was referred to A.G. Neuro Hospital, Salem for further treatment. At the time of accident, he was aged about 32 years. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the age of the injured at 32 years. The claimant claimed that he was earning a sum of Rs.10,500/-per month. Ex.P9 is the salary certificate, in which, it is stated the monthly salary of the injured is at Rs.16,423/-and the evidence of R.W.1 is also corroborate the same. Ex.P10 is the PAN card and Ex.P11 is the income-tax form. Ex.P9 is the salary certificate, in which, it is stated that the net salary of the injured is fixed at Rs.9,560/-, after deducing income-tax and other deductions. Therefore, the Tribunal relied on Ex.P9 and fixed the monthly salary of the injured at Rs.9,560 per month. In the evidence of P.W.1, it is further stated that he was in unconscious condition for a period of three months and also lost the vision in his right eye and the evidence of P.W.3 Dr.Muralidharan, who is the Neurologist, is also corroborate the same. P.W.4 is Dr.Vasu, who is the Ophthalmologist also examined the claimant. In his evidence, it is stated that the eye nerves were very much affected and due to the same, he lost the vision in his right eye. He determined the disability at 30%. Ex.P8 is the disability certificate. P.W.1 in his evidence, has stated that after the accident, he is continued to be in the employment. In his evidence, it is stated that the eye nerves were very much affected and due to the same, he lost the vision in his right eye. He determined the disability at 30%. Ex.P8 is the disability certificate. P.W.1 in his evidence, has stated that after the accident, he is continued to be in the employment. After taking into consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal fixed the disability at 20% as against 30% fixed by P.W.4 doctor. P.W.5 is Dr.Sundararajan who also examined the claimant. In his evidence, it is stated that the claimants right hand and leg were very much affected and due to the same, he is unable to do work as before. He determined the disability at 60%. Ex.P15 is the disability certificate. R.W.1 in his evidence has stated that after the accident, the injured is continued to be in the employment and because of these injuries he may not get increment of Rs.200/-per year. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the disability at 30% as against 60% fixed by P.W.5 doctor and the total disability was fixed at 50%. After taking into consideration of the age of the injured, the Tribunal adopted multiplier 17 and arrived at the loss of income due to 50% disability at Rs.9,75,120/-(Rs.9560x12x17x50/100). Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that it is not the fit case for adopting multiplier. Further, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the monthly income at Rs.9,560/-. In the present case, the injured is continued to be in the employment and he was not de-promoted and also drawing same salary but in the evidence of R.W.1, it is stated that due to the disability, the injured may not get increment every year. After considering the above evidence of R.W.1, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the salary of the injured at Rs.9,560/-per month. The only loss to the injured is that he may not get increment due to the above injury and also he lost the vision in his right eye. Therefore, it is reasonable to estimate the notional loss at Rs.4,000/- per month and the annual loss is works out to Rs.48,000/-. After taking into consideration of the age of the injured, it is reasonable to adopt multiplier 17 as per the second schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, it is reasonable to estimate the notional loss at Rs.4,000/- per month and the annual loss is works out to Rs.48,000/-. After taking into consideration of the age of the injured, it is reasonable to adopt multiplier 17 as per the second schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. If multiplier 17 applied, the loss due to 50% disability is works out to Rs.4,08,000/-(Rs.48,000x17x50/100). Therefore, the claimant is entitled to Rs.4,08,000/- towards loss due to 50% disability as against Rs.9,75,120/-awarded by the Tribunal. The present case satisfies all the conditions as enumerated in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Velusamy and another reported in 2005 (1) CTC 38 . Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards pain and suffering which is very low and meagre. He lost the vision in his right eye and grievous injuries all over the body. Taking into consideration of the same, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.20,000/-as against Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards extra nourishment which is very low and meagre. He was taking treatment in various hospitals. After taking into consideration of the same, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards extra nourishment as against Rs.4,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.750/-towards transport charges which is very low and meagre. He was taken treatment in Bangalore as well as Chennai. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards transport charges as against Rs.750/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.250/-towards damage to cloth which is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. After taking into consideration of the age of the injured, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities and the 50% disability would certainly affect the injured. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards loss of expectation of life. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards attendant charges. After taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.7,000/- towards attendant charges. The Tribunal awarded interest of 9% per annum. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards loss of expectation of life. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards attendant charges. After taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.7,000/- towards attendant charges. 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, the interest of 9% awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and the same is confirmed. The modified amount of the compensation are as under: Loss due to 50% disability= Rs.4,08,000/- Pain and suffering= Rs. 20,000/- Extra nourishment= Rs. 15,000/- Transport charges= Rs. 15,000/- Loss of amenities= Rs. 30,000/- Loss of expectation of life= Rs. 20,000/- Attendant charges= Rs. 7,000/- Total= Rs.5,15,000/- 7. In the result, the claimant is entitled to modified compensation of Rs.5,15,000/-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company that they have deposited the entire award amount with interest by the Court order dated 30.11.2005 and the claimant was also permitted to withdraw 50% of the award amount. Under these circumstances, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified compensation of Rs.5,15,000/-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.