Judgment : 1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/second respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 21.09.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.369 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge – FTC No.5), Coimbatore at Tiruppur, awarding a compensation of Rs.4,20,549/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/second respondent has filed the above appeal praying to scale down the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 20.12.2001, at about 16.00 hours, the petitioner was travelling in a moped bearing registration No.TN37 Z5012. In the opposite direction, a two wheeler bearing registration No.TN37 T1204 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioners vehicle. In the result, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was rushed to Coimbatore Richmond Hospital for treatment. 4. At the time of the said accident, the petitioner was aged about 53 years, he was a fore man attached to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. For treatment alone, he had spent a sum of Rs.75,000/-, for nourishment he had spent a sum of Rs.5,000/- and for transport he had spent a sum of Rs.5,000/-. In the said accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. 5. Regarding the said accident, a criminal case has been registered against the first respondent, driver in Crime No.797/2001 under Sections 337 and 279 of I.P.C. 6. The petitioner further stated in his claim petition that due to the said accident, he is unable to do his duty in the Government Department, for which he was on leave for more than five months. Further, the claimant claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-with interest on various grounds. 7. The second respondent/United India Insurance Co., Ltd., has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition filed by the claimant on various grounds. The respondent stated in his counter statement that the petitioner has not proved that at the time of accident, he was about 53 years. Further, he has not proved that he was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month from his department. The respondent stated in his counter statement that the petitioner has not proved that at the time of accident, he was about 53 years. Further, he has not proved that he was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month from his department. The respondent further stated that the claimant has not produced any valid document for sustaining grievous injuries and also not produced proper medical certificates regarding the medical expenses, which he met out in the hospital. Further, the respondent submitted that the petitioner has to prove that he has got valid documents, proper R.C. and driving licence etc., Further, he stated that he is entitled to contest the case under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further, the respondent stated that the claim amount of Rs.6,00,000/- claimed on various grounds are not pertaining as per law. 8. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely: (i) Who is responsible for the said accident? (ii) What is the quantum of compensation, which he is entitled to get? 9. On the petitioners side three witnesses were examined as PW1, PW2 and PW3 and thirteen documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P13. On the respondents side no witness was examined and no documents were marked. 10. The claimant was examined as PW1 and he adduced evidence that on 20.12.2001, at about 04.00 p.m. he met with an accident on Kovai – Avinasi Highways. The first respondents vehicle bearing registration No.TN37 T1204 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. Hence, the accident had happened. Immediately, he was rushed to hospital. Thereafter, he underwent treatment at Kovai Richmond Hospital, for 12 days as inpatient, wherein he underwent surgery. Again he was admitted in Kovai Gem Hospital, Coimbatore as inpatient for further treatment. The PW1 further stated that he had spent a sum of Rs.1,34,646/- as medical expenses. The said accident was registered by the Inspector of Police, Avinasi Police Station against the driver of the first respondent, under Crime No.797/2001. On the strength of the FIR registered against the first respondent, Wound Certificate and evidence of the PW1, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the first respondent is the cause for the said accident. As such, the first and second respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 11. On the strength of the FIR registered against the first respondent, Wound Certificate and evidence of the PW1, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the first respondent is the cause for the said accident. As such, the first and second respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 11. Regarding the second issue, the claimant adduced evidence that initially he was admitted in Richmond Hospital, Coimbatore as inpatient. Thereafter, again he was admitted in Gem Hospital, Coimbatore for better medical treatment. After the said accident, he is unable to walk, squat and restore to his normal work as determined by the Electricity Department. The claimant further adduced that at the time of accident he was a fore man and drawing a salary of Rs.11,501/- per month. 12. PW2, one Gnanaprakash had adduced evidence that he examined the claimant after taking Xray and issued Certificate stating that he sustained 55% disability. Further, on the side of the claimant, one D.Sudhakaran was examined as PW3. He adduced evidence regarding the employment of the claimant and salary. On the side of the claimant 13 documents were marked as Ex.P1, FIR; Ex.P2, Wound Certificate; Ex.P3, Discharge Summary issued by Richmond Hospital; Ex.P4, Discharge Summary issued by Gem Hospital; Ex.P5, Medical Bills standing in the name of claimant; Ex.P6, Salary Slip; Ex.P7, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Executive Engineers Proceedings; Ex.P8, Wound Certificate of the claimant; E.P9, Xray of the claimant; Ex.P10, Authorisation Letter given by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to the PW3, who is the employer of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board; Ex.P11, Salary Certificate issued by Tamil Nadu Electricity Board; Ex.P12, Leave particulars, while he was on medical leave and loss of pay and Ex.P13, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Attendance Register. 13. After considering the evidence of the PW1, PW2 and PW3 and connected records produced by the claimant before the Tribunal, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion and granted award to the claimant as follows: 1. For loss of income, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,58,400/-, after adopting multiplier method, 2. For disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.55,000/-, 3. For loss of income for 196 days, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.65,503/-, 4. For pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-, 5. For nutrition, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-, 6. For disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.55,000/-, 3. For loss of income for 196 days, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.65,503/-, 4. For pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-, 5. For nutrition, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-, 6. For medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,34,646/-, In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,20,549/-together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that the claimant underwent treatment on 18.08.2003 in Gem Hospital India Private Ltd., Coimbatore, is not relevant, as such, the medical bill cannot be included; that the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent argued that at the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 53 years and he was a fore man attached to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. After the said accident, he is unable to do his normal work, for which he is suffering more. Further, he underwent surgery twice at the Gem Hospital and Richmond Hospital. The claimant spent a sum of Rs.1,34,646/- for medical expenses alone. As such, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.4,20,549/- which is reasonable and fair. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, scrutiny of findings of the Tribunal and arguments advanced on either side, this Court is of the view that there is some discrepancy in the award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, this Court grants the award as follows: 1. For medical expenses, this Court grants a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, 2. For disability, 55% disability assessed by the Doctor, this Court grants a sum of Rs.82,500/- as compensation, 3. For loss of earning, this Court grants a sum of Rs.65,503/-, 4. For pain and suffering, this Court grants a sum of Rs.25,000/-, 5. For nutrition, this Court grants a sum of Rs.5,000/-, 6. For transport expenses, this Court grants a sum of Rs.5,000/-, In total, this Court has granted a compensation of Rs.2,83,003/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, which is found to be fair and equitable. 17. For transport expenses, this Court grants a sum of Rs.5,000/-, In total, this Court has granted a compensation of Rs.2,83,003/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, which is found to be fair and equitable. 17. On 22.08.2005, this Court imposed a condition that the appellant should deposit a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with proportionate interest, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.369 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge – FTC No.5), Coimbatore at Tiruppur. Further, this Court permitted the claimant to withdraw the said amount from the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.369 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge – FTC No.5), Coimbatore at Tiruppur and the appellant is directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.1,33,003/-together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.369 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge – FTC No.5), Coimbatore at Tiruppur, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this Order. 18. As the accident happened in the year 2002, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the balance compensation amount, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.369 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge – FTC No.5), Coimbatore at Tiruppur, after filing necessary payment out application, in accordance with law. 19. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the Award and Decree, dated 21.09.2004, in M.C.O.P.No.369 of 2002, passed by the Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.V, Coimbatore at Tiruppur, is modified. There is no order as to costs.