Judgment :- The appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.02.2003 made in M.C.O.P. No.1059 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Chief Court of Small Causes), Erode. 2. The claimant met with a motor vehicle accident on 10.7.2001 at about 10.30 p.m. The claimant Mr.Rajasekar was travelling as a pillion rider in the Kawasaki Bajaj Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN.27-D-7973. The said bike was driven by his brother M.Mohanvel, who were proceeding from Erode to Kalingarayan palayam, Bhavani Main Road. When they were nearing Amaravathi Nagar from South to North direction on the extreme left side of the road, a standard van bearing Registration No.TN.47.6393 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. As a result of the same, the claimant was thrown away from the bike and he fell down and sustained head injury and multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately the claimant was taken and admitted at Erode Government Hospital, later he was shifted to Senthil Neuro Hospital at Erode for better treatment. The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, the 2nd respondent insurance company, resisted the claim. The tribunal framed the following issues: (i) whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the standard van by the driver belonging to the first respondent, (ii) whether the claimant has to be awarded compensation, if so what amount. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligence driving of the driver of the standard van belonging to the first respondent and awarded compensation of Rs.3,47,500/- with the interest of 9%. The details of the compensation are here under:- Permanent Disabilities - 70,000 Medical Expenses - 1,50,000 Transportation charges - 500 Extra Nourishment - 5,000 Pain and suffering - 10,000 Loss of Income - 1,12,000 3,47,500/- 3. Aggrieved by the award, the claimant had filed a present appeal for enhancement. When the appeal is pending, the claimant died on 20.04.2004, the Legal heirs of the claimant were brought on record. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal was very low and meager. Aggrieved by the award, the claimant had filed a present appeal for enhancement. When the appeal is pending, the claimant died on 20.04.2004, the Legal heirs of the claimant were brought on record. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal was very low and meager. It is also further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the compensation, as claimed by the appellant and also stated that the Tribunal had not followed the principle of compensation before awarding the same. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that this a fit case for enhancement. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent insurance company, would submit that the Tribunal had considered the facts and circumstances of the case and awarded the compensation and the same is just, fair and reasonable. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 6. Heard the counsel and perused the document on record, PW1 Rani, who is the wife of the injured claimant had given oral evidence. PW2 Palaniyappan, who is coemployee of the claimant. PW3 is Dr.Selvaperumal, who was also examined. Exhibits A1 to A22 were marked hereunder: Ex.A1 – Attested copy of F.I.R. Ex.A2 – Attested copy of Model sketch. Ex.A3 – Attested copy of Magazar. Ex.A4–Attested copy of report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector. Ex.A5 – Attested copy of Wound Certificate. Ex.A6 – Attested copy of Crime Report. Ex.A7 – Medical Prescriptions Ex.A8 – Medical Bills Ex.A9 – Medical Bills Ex.A10- Medical Bills Ex.A11- Medical Bills Ex.A12- Discharge Summary Ex.A13- Laboratory Reports Ex.A14- Report of the Coimbatore Ramakrishna Hospital Ex.A15- Medical Prescription Ex.A16- Medical Prescription Ex.A17- E.C.G. Ex.A18- Scan Ex.A19- Scan Report Ex.A20- Copy of records in criminal case Ex.A21- Certificate issued by PW2 Ex.A22- Disabilities Certificate issued by PW3/Doctor. 7. On behalf of the second respondent no documents were marked to substantiate his case. After considering the above facts and circumstances, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the van belonging to the first respondent and the awarded the compensation on the basis of the available materials. 8. The claimant was 36 years old at the time of the accident. He was a Manager in Sivan Textile Mills, Erode. The claimant claimed that he was earning Rs.5,000/-per month. 8. The claimant was 36 years old at the time of the accident. He was a Manager in Sivan Textile Mills, Erode. The claimant claimed that he was earning Rs.5,000/-per month. The case was registered against the driver of the van and charge sheeted under Section 279 and 337 I.P.C. in Cr.No.306 of 2001. PW3 is a Doctor and he examined the injured and determined the disabilities at 70%. The disability certificate is Ex.A22, and further it is stated that the claimant sustained head injury and due to the same there was blood clotting in the brain. Further, it was stated by the PW3 that the left side was also paralysed and the claimant also lost his speech and was also unable to recognise anybody. Ex.A17 is ECG. Ex.A18 and A19 are the Scan Report. Ex.A13 is a test report given by the hospital. Ex.A14 is report of the Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore. Ex.A5 is the wound certificate. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence the Tribunal accepted the 70% disability and awarded the sum of Rs.70,000/- towards the loss of income due to the 70% disability. The award amount is reasonable and therefore the amount is confirmed. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,12,000/- towards loss of income and the same was worked out on the basis of the income of the claimant injured. The Tribunal fix the annual income at Rs.15,000/-. After consideration of the age of the claimant (i.e.), 36 years old, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 16 and arrived the compensation at Rs.2,40,000/-towards loss of income and out of the said amount, 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expense and balance of Rs.1,60,000/-is taken into consideration and worked out the loss of income as follows:- 15,000 X 16 = 2,40,000/- Less: 1/3 deduction = 80,000/- 1,60,000/- 70% disabilities - 1,60,000 X 70 ----- = 1,12,000/- 100 9. Award amount by the Tribunal towards loss of income is reasonable and therefore the same is confirmed. Further, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-towards medical expenses. The claimant claimed Rs.1,94,414/- towards Medical expenses. Exhibits A8 to A11 series are Medical Bills. It is an actual expenditure. Therefore, the Tribunal is wrong in awarding only a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and ought to have awarded the whole amount claimed by the claimant. Further, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-towards medical expenses. The claimant claimed Rs.1,94,414/- towards Medical expenses. Exhibits A8 to A11 series are Medical Bills. It is an actual expenditure. Therefore, the Tribunal is wrong in awarding only a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and ought to have awarded the whole amount claimed by the claimant. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.1,94,414/- as against Rs.1,50,000/-awarded by the Tribunal and also there is no serious dispute regarding the same. The Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.500/- towards transport charges. The award amount is very low. The claimant was admitted in Erode Hospital and later he was shifted to Senthil Neuro Hospital, Perunthurai, Erode. Further, he was also admitted in Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore for better treatment. Therefore, the award amount is very low and it is reasonable to award Rs.10,000/- for transport charges as against Rs.500/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards Extra Nourishment. He was in the hospital and also taking treatment. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- as against Rs.5,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. Further, Tribunal also awarded only a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards pain and suffering. It is very low. The claimant was injured paralysed and also lost his speech. But also unable to recognise anybody and fully bedridden due to head injury. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- as against Rs.10,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. Due to the nature of the disability and also he was completely lost his speech and he was paralysed and also he was unable to recognise people and further the injured was constantly attended by person. No amount was awarded by the tribunal towards Attendant charges. After taken into consideration of the same, the reasonable amount a sum of Rs.50,000/-is awarded towards attendant charges. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal is modified as follows: Loss of income due to 70% disabilities 70,000 Medical Expenses - 1,94,414 Transportation - 10,000 Extra Nourishment - 10,000 Pain and suffering - 25,000 Loss of Income - 1,12,000 Attended charges - 50,000 4,71,414/- When it is rounded is amounts to Rs.4,71,500/- less amount already awarded by the Tribunal Rs.3,47,500/- (-) Rs.1,24,000/- 10. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to enhanced amount of Rs.1,24,000/-. The date of accident is 10.7.2001 and after taking into consideration, of the rate of interest. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to enhanced amount of Rs.1,24,000/-. The date of accident is 10.7.2001 and after taking into consideration, of the rate of interest. Prevailing at that time it is reasonable to award 7.5% interest. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to enhancement amount of Rs.1,24,000/- with the interest of 7.5%. 11. Under these circumstances, the second respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.1,24,000/-with interest of 7.5% within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After deposit of the said enhanced amount, the claimant is also permitted to withdraw the amount. The appeal is disposed of with the above observation. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. No costs.