Judgment : 1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/third respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 14.09.2001, made in M.C.O.P.No.28 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Second Additional Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam, awarding a compensation of Rs.4,00,382/- with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/second respondent, The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co., Ltd., has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the said award and decree. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 14.12.1997, the petitioner had driven his Scooter bearing registration No.TDQ 1050 with a pillion rider Senthil Kumar in the Puliampatty to Sathy main road and at Senbagaputhur Village, in front of the Pattathalachi Amman Kovil, a lorry bearing registration No.TNC2257 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit against his Scooter on the western side of the road. The accident took place by about 11 p.m. near midnight on 14.12.1997. Hearing the cry of the petitioner and that of the pillion rider Senthil Kumar, a person sleeping at temple came and saw the accident and then phoned up to the fire service at Sathiamangalam. The fire service station van took the petitioner and the pillion rider Senthil Kumar to the Government Hospital at Sathiamangalam, wherein he was treated, immediately thereafter he was referred to CMC Hospital, Coimbatore, where he was treated up to 23.12.1997. Subsequently, he was discharged and admitted as an inpatient at the KKS Hospital, Gobichettipalayam and took treatment for about one month and six days. In the said accident, the petitioner sustained bone fracture and in the operating of the right leg, an aluminium rod was fixed as a support to the bone. He also sustained broken teeth on the lower and upper jaw, besides he sustained various injuries all over his body. For the said injuries, the petitioner had claimed a compensation of Rs.5,68,250/- under various heads. 4. Regarding the said accident, a criminal case has been registered by the Sathy Police Station, under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. in Crime No.603 of 1997. 5. The respondent/New India Insurance Co., Ltd., has filed a Counter statement and resisted the claim. For the said injuries, the petitioner had claimed a compensation of Rs.5,68,250/- under various heads. 4. Regarding the said accident, a criminal case has been registered by the Sathy Police Station, under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. in Crime No.603 of 1997. 5. The respondent/New India Insurance Co., Ltd., has filed a Counter statement and resisted the claim. The respondent stated that the alleged accident might have taken place because of the rashness and negligence of the petitioner, who drove his vehicle in a careless manner. The petitioner has wilfully suppressed the insurance particulars of the Scooter bearing registration No.TDQ 1050 and the name of the insurer of that vehicle and he has purposely omitted to add the insurer of the Scooter as necessary party. The petitioner cannot claim Rs.20,000/- for the damage to his scooter, however, he can claim this damage only from the insurer of this Scooter. The age of the petitioner, occupation and income should be proved beyond doubt by way of proper relevant records. Regarding mode of medical treatment, he has to prove with relevant records. The petitioners claim is excessive and disproportionate, as such the claim petition is not sustainable. 6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely: (i) Who caused the accident in a rash and negligent manner? (ii) Is the petitioner entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 7. On the petitioners side, three witnesses were examined as PW1, PW2 and PW3 and twelve documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P12 namely Ex.P1-FIR; Ex.P2-Motor Vehicle Inspectors report of the lorry; Ex.P3-Rough Sketch; Ex.P4-Accident Register; Ex.P5-Charge Sheet; Ex.P6-Copy of Judgment; Ex.P7-Medical Bills; Ex.P8-Bills towards Scooter repairs; Ex.P9-KKS Hospital medical bill; Ex.P10-Disability Certificate and Exs.P11 and P12 are the Xray series. On the respondents side no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. 8. The petitioner, Karuppaya has examined as PW1, in his evidence he stated that on 14.12.1997, around midnight at 11.00 p.m. the accident had happened on Puliyampatti – Sathy Road, the offending vehicle lorry, bearing registration No.TNC2257, came with high speed in a careless and negligent manner and dashed against him. In the said accident the petitioner sustained grievious injury on his right leg, right thighs and other parts of his body. The said accident was informed to the fire station by neighbours. In the said accident the petitioner sustained grievious injury on his right leg, right thighs and other parts of his body. The said accident was informed to the fire station by neighbours. The fire service came to the spot and took the injured petitioner to the Sathi Hospital for preliminary treatment, thereafter he was rushed to the Government Hospital at Coimbatore, where he underwent surgery on his right leg and fixed a metalic plate. For this surgery, the petitioner spent a sum of Rs.85,000/-. He had also underwent treatment for a period of three months continuously in the said hospital. The petitioner marked Ex.P1, the FIR registered against the driver of the lorry, which was involved in the said accident. To prove the said accident, the petitioner has also marked Ex.P2, the Sketch; Ex.P3-the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report; Ex.P4-the Accident Report; Ex.P5-the Charge Sheet against the driver of the lorry and Ex.P6-Criminal Court Judgment. It was revealed that the driver of the lorry was pleading guilty. On the basis of the petitioners evidence and documents, evidence marked through him, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident had happened due to the rash and negligence of the lorry driver. As such, the said offending vehicle insured with the third respondent/New India Insurance Co., Ltd., hence, the Insurance Co., Ltd., is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 9. The petitioner had stated that he had spent a sum of Rs.21,040/- towards the scooter repair, supporting this claim he had marked Ex.P8. For fixing the metal plate on his right leg, he had spent a sum of Rs.85,000/-. In the KKS Hospital, he was an inpatient for 1 ½ months. He remitted a sum of Rs.2,950/- as medical bills, for the said claim, he has marked Ex.P9. The PW3, Senthil Kumar, pillion rider, had adduced evidence that the accident happened due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry. The claimant was running a chicken stall in the said premises his earnings was Rs.5,000/- per month. After the said accident, he could not continue the said business. PW3, one Dr.Rajamanikkam has adduced evidence that he had examined the petitioner and his medical documentary evidence including Xrays, he opined that the petitioner is now with a permanent limp. The claimant was running a chicken stall in the said premises his earnings was Rs.5,000/- per month. After the said accident, he could not continue the said business. PW3, one Dr.Rajamanikkam has adduced evidence that he had examined the petitioner and his medical documentary evidence including Xrays, he opined that the petitioner is now with a permanent limp. The right leg movement reduced by 50 degrees, right thigh muscle has been reduced by two inches, right leg shape reduced by one inch, he is unable to lift his leg upwards right leg and foot sensitivity has been reduced. After, the surgery a metalic plate has been fixed. Three teeth were lost from his upper jaw. The right leg bone is bent and deformed. Due to these complex injuries, the petitioner is unable to walk, run, use staircases, to cycle and to squat, unable to carry things, he is still suffering pain in the operated areas. Further more, he is unable to eat hard food materials. So, the Doctor, PW3, has certified that the petitioner sustained 60% disability. 10. The PW1, further adduced evidence that the Accident Register disclosed that the accident had not happened due to mechanical failure of the lorry. Further as per Ex.P4, the driver of the lorry was punished. On the basis of the PW1s evidence regarding nature of injuries, mode of medical treatment, medical expenditure and on the basis of the Doctors opinion, the Tribunal has awarded compensation as follows: 1. The petitioner assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs.3,300/- per month. His age was 3 at the time of accident. His permanent disability is taken as 52%. Multiplier 17 was adopted. As such, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,50,064/- under the head of loss of income due to permanent disability. 2. Towards medical expenses, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.29,568/-as per Exs.P7 and P9, which are medical bills. 3. Towards scooter repair bill, a sum of Rs.9,000/- was awarded. 4. Towards nutrition, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded. 5. Towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded. 6. Towards the damage of clothes a sum of Rs.250/- was awarded. 7. Towards transport expenses, a sum of Rs.1,500/- was awarded. 3. Towards scooter repair bill, a sum of Rs.9,000/- was awarded. 4. Towards nutrition, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded. 5. Towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded. 6. Towards the damage of clothes a sum of Rs.250/- was awarded. 7. Towards transport expenses, a sum of Rs.1,500/- was awarded. In total, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,382/-together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. The said award the third respondent/the New India Insurance Co., Ltd., has to deposit within a period of one month. Further, the Tribunal fixed as Advocate fee a sum of Rs.11,003/-. The Tribunal further ordered that the compensation amount should be deposited in a nationalised bank for a period of three years, after the deposit the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the interest thereon half yearly once. 11. Challenging the award and decree passed by the Tribunal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the award granted by the Tribunal is not pertinent, since there is no proof of income. Further the claimants avocation was not affected. For loss of earning multiply method will not be applicable. The said accident had happened due to the rash and negligent riding of the Scooter by the claimant, as such, the Insurance co., is not allowed to pay any compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal erred to note that the driver of the two wheeler was under the influence of alcohol, while riding the vehicle. In the accident register, Ex.P4, it was mentioned that there was breath smell of alcohol on the rider of the vehicle. The claimant also contributed to the negligence of the said accident. Monthly income as fixed by the Tribunal is also erroneous. Rs.9,000/-granted by the Tribunal under the head of scooter damage is also erroneous. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, argued that the rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The total compensation awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,382/-is on the higher side. Monthly income as fixed by the Tribunal is also erroneous. Rs.9,000/-granted by the Tribunal under the head of scooter damage is also erroneous. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, argued that the rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The total compensation awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,382/-is on the higher side. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant cited a Judgement in 2009(2) TN MAC, V.S.Krishnamurthy vs. M.Thanikachalam, the relevant head notes of which are as follows: "DISABILITY – Assessment – Injureds hip bones broken in accident when lorry wheel ran over his hips – flat bone on right hip joint upper portion broken – Front portion hip bones dislocated – In left side of hip bone, two cross bones fractured – Injured remained inpatient for 44 days and underwent two surgical operations – In pelvis region two rods fixed – Doctor P.W.2 stated about fractures in Pelvic bone at S.I.Joint (R) and Public Rami (L) superior and inferior – 35% difficulty to sit continuously and bend and to ride vehicles – Malunion of public rami fracture superior and inferior and claimant walks with limping and this disability assessed at 30% - Total 65% disability certified by Doctor – Doctor/P.W.2 stated in cross-examination regarding assessment of disability that there could be variation of 5% from one Doctor to another – Hence giving a margin of 5%, High Court fixed disability at 65% and awarded Rs.60,000/- under Permanent Disability as against Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal." 12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that due to the accident the claimants marital life prospects are reduced. The claimant lost total strength on his right leg, as such he is unable to perform his normal work, his avocation being totally affected. He is unable to walk, run, use staircases and his normal acts in his day to day life. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.9,000/- towards scooter repairs, but bills produced for scooter repairing is Rs.21,040/-, supporting this claim the claimant marked Ex.P8, but the Tribunal did not considered it. 13. At the time of accident, the claimant was 23 years Old and was undergoing treatment for 1 ½ months as inpatient in a private hospital, so medical expenses alone ie.Rs.29,568/-. Awards towards the pain and suffering, nutrition and transport are lower side. 13. At the time of accident, the claimant was 23 years Old and was undergoing treatment for 1 ½ months as inpatient in a private hospital, so medical expenses alone ie.Rs.29,568/-. Awards towards the pain and suffering, nutrition and transport are lower side. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents cited a case reported in 2005 (1) CTC 38 , United India Insurance Company Ltd., v. Veluchamy and another, the relevant head notes of which are as follows: "Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Second Schedule, Clause 5 – Compensation in case of disability arising in non-fatal accidents – In case of permanent or partial disablement Court can arrive at amount payable by multiplying annual loss of income by multiplier applicable to age on date of determining compensation – Proper multiplier is prescribed in Clause 1 of II Schedule – Percentage of permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement arising out of injuries has to be arrived at as per Schedule I under Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 – However Court should not mechanically apply multipler method to ........" 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the either side learned counsel and the findings of the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal after considering the evidence of the petitioner and the evidence of the pillion rider and a perusal of document evidence namely Ex.P1-FIR, Ex.P2-Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report of the offending vehicle, Ex.P3-Sketch and Ex.P6-the findings of the Criminal Court, which is against the driver of the lorry. Considering all the above aspects the Tribunal has concluded that the driver of the lorry is the cause of the accident. This Court affirms the same. 15. Regarding the quantum of compensation, which was awarded by the Tribunal, the Court is of the view that as per the petitioners evidence, he has sustained bone fracture injured on his right leg, for which he underwent surgery and had fixed a metalic rod and screwed to the bone. This surgery has caused a bend and deformation of the bone. The same was certified by the competent doctor, who was examined as PW3 and he certified that the petitioner sustained 60% disability. Due to the accident the petitioner is now limping by walk. The right leg of the accident area is also permanently deformed. This surgery has caused a bend and deformation of the bone. The same was certified by the competent doctor, who was examined as PW3 and he certified that the petitioner sustained 60% disability. Due to the accident the petitioner is now limping by walk. The right leg of the accident area is also permanently deformed. As such, this Court is of the view that is a permanent disability, for at one time, he was normally walking but now limping is the equivalent of being a handicapped. So, the Tribunal adopted a multiply method and assessed the compensation to the claimant under the head of loss of income due to permanent disability. Rs.39,600 X 17 X 52/100 = Rs.3,50,064/-, which is fair and reasonable. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.29,568/-towards medical bill, supporting this claim, Exs.P7 and P9 were marked. Towards scooter repair Rs.9,000/- was awarded, supporting this claim Ex.P8 was marked. Rest of the claims namely pain and suffering Rs.5,000/-, for nutrition Rs.5,000/-, for clothes damages Rs.250, for transport Rs.1,500/-were granted by the Tribunal are equitable and fair. The award granted in 2001, the rate of interest at 9% is reasonable. So, this Court confirms the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Second Additional Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam, in M.C.O.P.No.28 of 1999, dated 14.09.2001 is confirmed by this Court. 16. At the time of admission, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant on 24.04.2002 to deposit half of the compensation amount to the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.28 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Second Additional Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam. After the deposit, this Court permitted the claimant to withdraw a sum of Rs.2,75,000/-. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Co., that as per the award granted by the Tribunal a sum of Rs.5,45,530/-has already been deposited to the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.28 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Second Additional Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam. 17. As the accident happened in the year 1999, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.28 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Second Additional Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam, after filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law, subject to deduction of withdrawals, if any. 18. 18. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Award and Decree, dated 14.09.2001, in M.C.O.P.No.28 of 1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Second Additional Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.