Judgment :- S. PALANIVELU, J. 1. Following are the allegations contained in the claim petition:- On 23.11.1999, at about 17.00 hours while the claimant was taking his moped bearing Registration No.TN-41-1298 by walk on the left side of the Mankulam Semmanur Road, near Manakulam Kuttai Thottam, a bus belonging to the respondent Corporation bearing Registration No.TN-38-N-0025 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, causing him grievous injuries. He sustained numerous fractures. The claimant was running M/s. Senthilkumar Textiles in Chinnandipalayam and was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month. The bus driver was negligent at the time of accident. Hence, a sum of Rs.18,90,000/-is prayed for as compensation. 2. The following are the allegations found in the counter: The petition is not maintainable. The claimant is put to strict proof of his age, income, avocation, injuries and disability. It is also denied that he lost earning capacity and he sustained loss of income. The claimant without analysing the bus coming from the opposite side, lost his balance, dashed against the bus and caused with the accident. The allegations contained in the petition and the F.I.R are not true. The compensation claimed under various heads are excessive. Hence, the petition may be dismissed. 3. In the additional counter filed by the Transport Corporation, it is stated that the claimant neither took continuous treatment nor special treatment. His claim on the medical expenses is baseless. He wants unlawful gain out of unexpected accident. He could not have spent to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/-for medical expenses, when he is unable to pay court fee. Hence, the petition may be dismissed. 4. After scrutiny of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Tribunal Judge has observed that the bus driver was negligent at the time of accident and the transport Corporation is liable to pay the compensation, that the records produced by the claimant would show that he was running a power-loom unit, thereby he was earning Rs.6,000/-per month, that multiplier 17 has to be adopted under all the heads and that he is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.17,78,474/-. This is the award challenged before this Court by the appellant. 5. This is the award challenged before this Court by the appellant. 5. Even though in the memorandum of appeal there are certain grounds covering the negligent point as discussed by the Tribunal, before this Court no arguments were advanced as to the fastening of liability upon the bus driver by the Tribunal. The appellant very much assails the quantum reached by the Tribunal, by describing the same as excessive and that it is not on the settled preposition. 6. The learned counsel for the Appellant Mrs.B. Vijayalakshmi would submit that the manner of calculating the income earned by the claimant as narrated by the Tribunal is not correct, that he could not have earned Rs.6,000 per month when his specific claim is that his monthly income was Rs.5,000/-as per the pleadings in the petition and his oral evidence, that adopting multiplier 17 is on the higher side, that under other heads also the compensation awarded are on the higher side and that the Tribunal should not have fixed the permanent disability at 100% while the evidence shows that it is only 59%. 7. On the other side, the learned counsel for the claimant Mrs.Ra.Srividhya would submit that the voluminous documents produced by the claimant would candidly show that the monthly income of the claimant would have been more than Rs.6,000/-, even though it was pleaded as Rs.5,000/-per month, that the medical evidence show that he was totally disabled from pursuing his routine work, including his powerloom business and the selling of powerloom unit to P.W.3 would reveal the fact that he could not run the business due to his disability and there is no wrong on the part of the Tribunal to take into consideration the percentage of his permanent disability at 100%, that adopting multiplier 17 is as per the settled preposition and that under various heads, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation reasonably which cannot be stated to be on the higher side. 8. P.W.2, doctor, working in Coimbatore Medical College Hospital as Orthopedician had examined the claimant and has given Disability Certificate Ex.P.29 wherein he has narrated the injuries including the fractures and dislocations and would come out as regards the claimants disablement in attending to his routine work. 8. P.W.2, doctor, working in Coimbatore Medical College Hospital as Orthopedician had examined the claimant and has given Disability Certificate Ex.P.29 wherein he has narrated the injuries including the fractures and dislocations and would come out as regards the claimants disablement in attending to his routine work. He would say that the claimant could not squat, that he suffers from pain if he stands, walks or climbs steps, that the fractured left wrist portions remains with pain by means of which he could not lift his left wrist, that he could not use his left leg, that he has no movements in his right leg, which is shortened by 4 cms, that his right thigh is seen with healed scars and also the scars as a result of plastic surgery, that the fibula bone and right thigh bone are malunited that the left wrist and left pelvis bones show degeneration and hence he is suffering from permanent disablement to the tune of 59%. 9. P.W.1.claimant would say that he could not do any work, that he is unable to walk with his right leg, that he experienced much pain since in the right thigh bone steel plate has been fixed for his fracture, that he could not use his left hand also, that he is a bachelor and there is no scope for marriage in future and that he could not run his business on account of the above said disabilities. 10. Ex.P.2 is the Wound Certificate issued by Ganga Hospital for the claimant and Ex.P.3 is the Discharge summary issued by the same hospital. In addition to 11 lacerated injuries and swellings, the claimant had suffered the following fractures and dislocations as enlisted in Discharge Summary Ex.P.3:- "1) TYPE III-B COMPOUND, COMMINUTED SUPRACONDYLAR FRACTURES OF ® FEMUR. 2) TYPE III-A COMPUND, COMMINUTED FRACTURE OF BOTH BONES – (R) LEG. 3) APL & EPB REPTURE (R) HAND. 4) EXTENSOR EXPANSION RUPTURE -(R) LITTLE FINGER 5) DEEP LACERATED WOULD – (L) THIGH 6) FRACTURE BOTH BONES (L) FOREARM 7) ANTERIOR DISLOCATION (L) HIP 8) FRICTION ABRASIONS (L) SHOULDER & ARM 9) FRACTURE LOWER END OF RADIUS WITH SUBULUXATION (L) WRIST." 11. On the income point, when we go through the documents produced by the claimant, we are able to find out that the claimant was not capable of managing and running of the power-loom business. On the income point, when we go through the documents produced by the claimant, we are able to find out that the claimant was not capable of managing and running of the power-loom business. As per the oral account, he was having six power-looms in his unit, and that due to the grievous injuries sustained in the accident, he sold the unit to P.W.3. P.W.3 supports the version of the claimant by saying that the claimant besides payment of Rs.2,500/-into the bank for loan, was getting Rs.5,000/-from the business, that he (P.W.3) purchased six power-looms from him on 3.1.2002 and paid Rs.95,000/-on 4.1.2002 withdrawn from Tiruppur South Indian Bank and also paid Rs.25,000/-on the same day. Ex.P.42 is the written document came to existence between them on 3.1.2002 evidencing the transfer of power-loom unit in favour of P.W.3. It is established that the claimant was running the business but he could not continue the same after the accident. 12. Adverting to the quantum as fixed by the Tribunal, it has taken into consideration Rs.5,000/-as monthly income of the claimant as stated in the pleadings and evidence. Further it has proceeded to calculate as per the minimum wages fixed by the Government and took into consideration Rs.3,000/-per month for an ordinary coolie, and by the physical work exerted by him he could get Rs.100/-per day and Rs.50/-might be his profit per day and on account of supervision also he would get Rs.50/-per day totalling Rs.200/-per day and hence monthly income could be arrived at Rs.6,000/-. Even though permanent disability was assessed at 59%, it has taken 100% of permanent disability for the purpose of assessing loss of income, in addition to Rs.59,000/-for the permanent disability. Awarding of loss of income and compensation for permanent disability under same head is not sustainable. As per the Full Bench decision of this Court, the loss of earning power, loss of future income and compensation for permanent disability shall be under the same head. In such a view of this matter Rs.59,000/-awarded for permanent disability has to be deleted from the calculation. 13. Rs.20,000/-each has been granted for grievous injury and future pain and sufferings and another Rs.10,000/-granted for the pain and sufferings suffered due to grievous injury. The above said amounts may be combined and a sum of Rs.50,000/-may be granted under the head Pain and Sufferings. 13. Rs.20,000/-each has been granted for grievous injury and future pain and sufferings and another Rs.10,000/-granted for the pain and sufferings suffered due to grievous injury. The above said amounts may be combined and a sum of Rs.50,000/-may be granted under the head Pain and Sufferings. Award of Rs.10,000/-for extra nourishment and Rs.1,00,000/-for loss of marriage prospects are reasonable and the compensation under the heads are confirmed. Further, Rs.3,30,474/-has been granted for medical expenses, which has been established from the production of medical records and bills. The said sum has to be awarded as such, however, it is rounded to Rs.3,30,500/-. 14. In our considered view, it is appropriate to fix the monthly income at Rs.5,000/-as per oral evidence. The consideration of 100% of permanent disability for reaching compensation for the total loss of income as done by the Tribunal, in our view is proper. In this regard, even though the claimant suffers permanent disability to the tune of 59% , medical evidence is abundant in reaching a conclusion that he has been totally disabled from pursuing the routine work. In other words, he could not at all continue his business as before. Hence for calculating total loss of income, permanent disability of 100% has to be taken. 15. The Honourable Supreme Court in 2009 (6) SCC 121 [Sarla Verma (Smt) v. Delhi Transport Corportion and another] has elaborately discussed about the multiplier to be adopted for the people who lost their lives in fatal accidents, with reference to the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court. In the present case the claimant is 26 years of age at the time of accident as per his chief examination. Since he has been permanently disabled from doing his routine work as before, it is apt to adopt multiplier method to arrive at the total loss of future income. As per the decision of the Supreme Court, when the age of the individual at the time of accident was between 26 and 30 years, the multiplier 17 has to be adopted as per 1996 (4) SCC 362 [UP State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra]. In Sarla Vermas case the multiplier as decided in Trilok Chandras case, as clarified in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Charlie [ 2005 (10) SCC 720 =2005 (7) SCC (Cri.) 1657] has been directed to be followed. In Sarla Vermas case the multiplier as decided in Trilok Chandras case, as clarified in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Charlie [ 2005 (10) SCC 720 =2005 (7) SCC (Cri.) 1657] has been directed to be followed. In the case on hand, if multiplier 17 is applied, the total loss of income would come to Rs.10,20,000/-[5000 X 12 X 17]. 16. The compensation under various above heads is totalling to Rs.15,10,000/-. This amount shall be paid as compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% as decided by the Tribunal. Hence, the award passed by the Court below has to be modified as far as the quantum of compensation is concerned. 17. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part, awarding a compensation of Rs.15,10,500/-modifying the award for Rs.17,48,474/-by the Tribunal, alongwith the interest at the rate of 9%, payable from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit with proportionate costs. Connected M.P.is closed.