Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the insurance company against the award dated 17.03.2003 made in M.C.O.P No.89 of 2000 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court) Cheyyar. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: One injured Dhanalakshmi met with an motor traffic accident on 26.03.1999 at about 10.00 P.M. She was travelling in a bus bearing registration No.TN.21.N.0245 belonging to the appellant transport corporation. While the claimant get down from the bus at Vandavasi bus stop, the driver of the bus started the bus suddenly, without verifying whether the claimant has got down or not, and due the same, the claimant fell down and the rear wheel of the bus ran over her legs. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained grevious injuries and fracture. She claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The appellant 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 bus 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 bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation and awarded compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss due to 30% disability =Rs. 86,400/- Loss of income =Rs. 18,000/- Loss due to permanent disability =Rs. 35,000/- Pain and suffering =Rs. 10,000/- Medical expenses =Rs. 7,200/- Transportation =Rs. 2,400/- Nourishment =Rs. 1,000/- Total =Rs.1,60,000/- 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 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 after awarding a sum of Rs.86,400/-towards loss due to 30% disability, ought not to have awarded a sum of Rs.18,000/-towards loss of income and Rs.35,000/- towards permanent disability. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same should be set aside. 4. Further, the Tribunal after awarding a sum of Rs.86,400/-towards loss due to 30% disability, ought not to have awarded a sum of Rs.18,000/-towards loss of income and Rs.35,000/- towards permanent disability. 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 P27 were marked. On the side of the appellant insurance company, R.W.1 one Sekar who is the conductor of the bus was examined and no documents were marked to substantiate their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is one Sathyamurthy, who is the husband of the injured. P.W.3 is Dr.Sanmugasundaram, who is the orthopaedist. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 dated 31.03.1999 is the copy of the wound certificate, Ex.P3 is the discharge summary, Ex.P4 is the X-Ray, Ex.P5 is the X-Ray, Ex.P6 and P7 are the medical receipts, Ex.P8 to P19 are the the medical receipts, Ex.P20 dated 22.05.2000 is the certificate for taking physiotherapy treatment, Ex.P21 dated 07.05.1999 is the X-Ray, Ex.P22 is the certificate given by Chennai Best Hospital, Ex.P23 dated 08.12.2001 is the prescription, Ex.P24 dated 25.02.2001 is the prescription, Ex.P25 dated 23.11.2002 is the disability certificate, Ex.P26 is the taxi rent receipt, Ex.P27 is the medical receipts 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 belonging to the appellant trasport corporation. 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 claimant was aged about 36 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 accident, the claimant was aged about 36 years. P.W.1 is the claimant. In her evidence, it is stated that she is selling readymade garments and she claimed that she was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month and further stated that only the driver of the bus caused the accident and the driver was also charge sheeted by Vandavasi Town Police Station in Crime No.115/99 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. In her evidence, it is further stated that due to the accident, she sustained a fracture in left ankle. After the accident, immediately she was admitted in Government Hospital, Pondicherry, and taken treatment in the said hospital for a period of six months as inpatient and after discharge also, she was taking treatment for a period of one year as outpatient and due to the injury, she is unable to do work as before. P.W.3 is orthopaedist who examined the claimant and determined the disability at 30%. Ex.P25 is the disability certificate. In his evidence, it is further states that due to the injury, the injured cannot stand, sit, walk substantially and also cannot do the work as before and also there is a restricted movement of the left ankle. There is no evidence on record to show that the injured is earning Rs.5,000/-per month. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the view that the injured would be earning not less than Rs.50/- per day and determined the monthly income of the injured at Rs.1,500/-and computed the annual income at Rs.18,000/- (Rs.1500x12). After considering the oral and documentary evidence in respect of the injury, the Tribunal adopted multiplier method in the present case. 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.86,400/-(Rs.18000x16x30/100). Furthermore, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/-towards permanent disability. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted multiplier method in injury case and 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. Furthermore, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/-towards permanent disability. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted multiplier method in injury case and 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, after taking into consideration of the nature of injury, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. If Rs.2,000/-is awarded, the loss due to 30% disability works out to Rs.60,000/-(Rs.2000x30). Therefore, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.60,000/-towards loss due to 30% disability as against Rs.86,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal after awarding a sum of Rs.86,400/- towards loss due to 30% disability, awarded a sum of Rs.18,000/-towards loss of income and Rs.35,000/-towards loss due to permanent disability which are unwarranted and accordingly deleted. However, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained a fracture in left ankle and she was taken treatment for a period of six months as inpatient and after discharge also, she was taking treatment for a period of one year as outpatient. Taking into consideration of the same, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering as against Rs.10,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,200/-towards medical bills. Ex.P8 to P19 are the series of medical bills. It is an actual expenditure. Therefore, the Tribunal correctly awarded a sum of Rs.7,200/-towards medical bills which is reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.2,400/- towards transportation which is very low and meagre. Ex.P8 is the bill for Rs.5,850/-. The injured was engaged a Taxi for the purpose of going to Hospital. After taking into consideration of the same, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,800/-towards transportation as against Rs.2,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards nourishment. The claimant was admitted in Government Hospital, Pondicherry and taken treatment in the said hospital for a period of six months as inpatient and after discharge also she was taking treatment for a period of one year as outpatient. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards nourishment. The claimant was admitted in Government Hospital, Pondicherry and taken treatment in the said hospital for a period of six months as inpatient and after discharge also she was taking treatment for a period of one year as outpatient. Taking into consideration of the same, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards nourishment as against Rs.1,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards attendant charges. After discharge from the hospital, due to the fracture the injured was taking treatment for a period of one year as outpatient. Due to the injury, she has to be assisted by somebody. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.7,500/-towards attendant charges. However, the Tribunal has also not awarded any sum towards loss of income during treatment period. She was taking treatment in the hospital for a period of six months as inpatient and definitely she would not have attended the work during that period. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.7,500/-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, 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 30% disability = Rs. 60,000/- Pain and suffering = Rs. 15,000/- Medical expenses = Rs. 7,200/- Transportation = Rs. 5,800/- Nourishment = Rs. 5,000/- Attendant charges = Rs. 7,500/- Loss of income during treatment period = Rs. 7,500/- Total = Rs.1,08,000/- 7. The compensation amount of Rs.1,08,000/- is rounded off to Rs.1,10,000/-. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to modified compensation of Rs.1,10,000/-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 13.02.2004 and the claimant was also permitted to withdraw 60% of the deposited amount with accrued interest. Under these circumstances, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum, less the amount already withdrawn, on making proper application. Under these circumstances, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum, 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 modifications, the appeal is disposed of. No costs.