Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant against the award dated 1.7.2005 made in MCOP No.930 of 1999 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fat Track Court NO.IV)Coimbatore at Tiruppur. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The first respondent/injured Selvaraj was met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 27.2.1999 at about 3.30p.m. The first respondent/injured and his wife were proceeding in TVS 50 moped bearing Registration No.TN-39-C-6963 on the extreme left side of Tirupur -Dharapuram road. When they were nearing Usha Theatre, a van bearing Registration No.TN-09-G-0340 belonging to the appellant came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit the moped. Due to the same, the injured and his wife thrown out and sustained grievous injuries. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation. The appellant resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent? Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation? 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 rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van belonging to the appellant and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,53,198/- with interest at 7.5% p.a per annum from the date of claim petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of income due 48% disability Rs. 1,57,248.00 Medical Expenses Rs. 1,85,700.41 Transport charges Rs. 250.00 Extra nourishment Rs. 1,000.00 Pain and suffering Rs. 9,000.00 Total Rs.3,53,198.41 Rounded off Rs.3,53,198/- Aggrieved by that award, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant questioned only quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and without basis and justification. Further the learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted multiplier method in the case of injury. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance and the same has to be set aside. 4. Further the learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted multiplier method in the case of injury. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance and the same has to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, the claimant was examined himself as P.Ws.1 and Dr.Mohamed Subair, was examined as P.W.2 and documents Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. Ex P1 is the First Information Report; Ex P2 is wound certificate; Ex P3 is the discharge summary; Ex P4 is the medical bills; Ex P5 driving licence; Ex P6 is disability certificate; Ex P7 is X-Ray. On the side of the appellant, one Srinivasaraghavan , the official was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked to support their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. PW2 is the doctor. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving the driver of the van and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 42 years. P.W.1 in his evidence has stated that he is working as Manager in Vinayaga Jewellery at Tirupur and was earning a sum of Rs.4000/- per month. He further deposed that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of van belonging to the appellant and the driver was also charge sheeted by the Tirupur South Police Station in Cr.No.161/99. The claimant further deposed in his evidence that due to injury, he sustained fracture in his hip, right thigh, right leg and severe injuries in the skull and all over the body. Immediately he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Tirupur on 27.2.1999 and later admitted at Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore for better treatment. The claimant further deposed in his evidence that due to injury, he sustained fracture in his hip, right thigh, right leg and severe injuries in the skull and all over the body. Immediately he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Tirupur on 27.2.1999 and later admitted at Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore for better treatment. Even though, the claimant claimed that his age was 42 years at the time of accident, but in Ex P2 wound certificate, it is stated that the age of claimant was 50 years. Therefore, the Tribunal has fixed the age of the claimant at 50 years. There is no contra evidence available on record to show that he is working in Vinayaga Jewellery, Tirupur. Therefore, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.2100/-. P.W.2 the doctor, who examined the injured has determined the disability at 53% and the disability certificate is Ex P6. It is pertinent to note that he is not the doctor who treated the injured. Further it is stated that the claimant sustained fracture in the hip and right thigh and also sustained grievous injuries on right foot and other multiple injuries all over the body. Ex P3 is the discharge summary, in which, it is clear that the injured was in the hospital from 27.2.1999 to 7.4.199 as inpatient in the Government Hospital and two surgeries were also done in the hospital on 8.3.1999 and 17.3.1999. ExP4 is the series of medical bills. As per Ex P4 medical bills, the amount works out to Rs.1,85,700.41, which is an actual expenditure incurred by the claimant. Therefore, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,85,700/-towards medical expenses which is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. In respect of the disability determined by the doctor at 53%, the Tribunal was of the view that as P.W.2 is not the doctor who treated the injured but he only examined the injured after six years and determined the disability assessed at 53%, the disability at 48% and determined the loss towards disability by adopting multiplier method and arrived at Rs.1,57,248/-(2100 x 12 x13 x 48%). The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted multiplier method in the case of injury and also further submitted that there is no evidence available on record to show that the said disability affects the earning capacity of the claimant. Therefore, the Correct method to be adopted in the present case is percentage method. Normally, the Court award Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/- per percentage of disability. In present case, the Doctor has determined disability at 53%, but the Tribunal fixed at 49% without any basis. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the disability determined by the doctor need not be reduced and the disability can be taken as determined by the doctor at 53% and it is reasonable to award Rs.2,000/- per percentage and if Rs.2000/-is awarded per percentage for 53% disability the amount works out to Rs.1,06,000/-( 2,000 x 53). The claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.1,06,000/-towards 53% permanent disability as against a sum of Rs.1,57,248/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.250/- towards transport to hospital and further sum of Rs.1000/-towards Extra nourishment. These amounts are very low and meagre. There is no dispute that the claimant was admitted in the Government Hospital as well as Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore for more than one year and took treatment. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards transport to hospital and further sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards extra nourishment as against Rs 250/- and Rs.1000/-respectively . The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9,000/-towards pain and suffering and mental agony. After taking into consideration, the nature of injuries and was taking treatment in Ganga Hospital for one year,it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- as against a sum of Rs.9000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of income during the treatment period. There is no dispute that the claimant was admitted in the hospital and during that period, he would not earn any amount. Hence this Court feels that it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.7,500/- towards loss of income during the treatment period. The Tribunal has also awarded interest at the rate of 7.5%. There is no dispute that the claimant was admitted in the hospital and during that period, he would not earn any amount. Hence this Court feels that it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.7,500/- towards loss of income during the treatment period. The Tribunal has also awarded interest at the rate of 7.5%. After taking into consideration, the date of accident, the date of award and the prevailing rate of interest, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Loss due to 53% disability Rs. 1,06,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 1,85,700/- Transport charges Rs. 3,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/- Loss of income during treatment Period Rs. 7,500/- Total Rs. 3,22,200/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.3,22,200/-with interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of petition as against the compensation of Rs.3,53,198/- awarded by the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant has submitted that the appellant has not deposited the award amount till date as per the order of this Court dated 7.12.2005 and hence this Court vacated the interim stay granted by this Court on 12.01.2007. Therefore, the appellant is directed to deposit the modified compensation of Rs.3,22,200/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same on making proper application. 8. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.