Judgment : 1. The Appeal has been filed by the claimant not satisfied with the awards of Rs.37,000/- as against his claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. 2. The case of the Appellant is that in the Accident occurred on 24.11.1994, when the respondent-Corporation Bus, which was driven rashly and negligently, over the Paddy Field, resulting injuries to the claimant. The injuries sustained are as follows: “Multiple Sub Trochantetic Fracture of left Femur with Condylar Plate, Fracture of left Thigh, Injury on the Left hand and other multiple injuries all over the body.” Claiming compensation, the appellant filed Claim Petition which was resisted by the Transport Corporation. On appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the respondent’s bus and awarded a sum of Rs.37,000/- as compensation. The said award is challenged by the appellant, for enhancement, in this Appeal. 3. Mr. U.M. Ravichandran learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claimant was a Coolie earning about Rs.75/- per day and without awarding any amount towards Loss of Earning Capacity, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.25,000/- towards Disability. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Gnanam v. Metropolitan Transport Corporation, 2009 (1) TN MAC 23 : 2009 ACJ 852 , where in for fracture in the right upper arm, the Tribunal awarded of Rs.1,50,000/- towards Loss of Earning Capacity and considering the claimant’s monthly income of Rs.5,000/- and his age, the Tribunal adopted 25 as multiplier. The said award of the Tribunal was reversed by the High Court. On Appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reversed the judgment of this High Court and restored the Tribunal’s award. In this case also, the learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal should have awarded compensation towards Loss of Earning Capacity, as the appellant was a Coolie and his capacity to earn got reduced. 4. On the other hand, Mr. A. Babu learned counsel for the Transport Corporation submitted that, the appellant sustained only a fracture which would get united, PW2 Doctor himself admitted in cross-examination that the claimant would be able to walk independently without the help of the stick and therefore, there cannot be any disability and there cannot be any compensation towards Loss of Earning Capacity. A. Babu learned counsel for the Transport Corporation submitted that, the appellant sustained only a fracture which would get united, PW2 Doctor himself admitted in cross-examination that the claimant would be able to walk independently without the help of the stick and therefore, there cannot be any disability and there cannot be any compensation towards Loss of Earning Capacity. The learned counsel further submitted that considering all those factor, the Tribunal rightly awarded a sum of Rs.37,000 and that therefore the award does not warrant any interference. 5. A perusal of the pleadings and evidence would go to show that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus, based an Ex.P2 and P3, evidence of PW1 and considering the fact that the FIR was lodged against the driver. In any event, there is no Appeal by the Transport Corporation against the finding regarding negligence and hence the award of the Tribunal has reached its finality in this regard. 6. The case of the appellant before the Tribunal is that he was earning about Rs.75/- to Rs.80/- per day. Further contention of the claimant is that he was working a daily wager. This Court expect any documentary evidence to prove that fact. The accident occurred on 24.11.1994. By the time the Act 54 of 1994 came into effect from 14.11.1994. As per the Second Schedule for a non-earning person notional income could be fixed at Rs.15,000/- per annum, and therefore, in the absence of any material to prove anything with regard to the income, this Court, following the Second Schedule can fix the annual income of the claimant at Rs.15,000/-. 7. It is not the case of the claimant that he completely lost his employment and it was proved before the Tribunal by examining PW2-Doctor, who deposed that he sustained 50% disability and issued Disability Certificate marked as Ex.P10. PW2-Doctor is an Orthopaedic Surgeon who deposed as follows: (TAMIL) 8. The above evidence of PW2, Doctor, would go to show that the claimant was operated and a plate and wires were implanted and there was malunion of bones and there was variation in the movement of the leg and inability to walk freely. He further deposed that the claimant was developing pain and that the plate and screws which were implanted, would have to be removed by another surgery. He further deposed that the claimant was developing pain and that the plate and screws which were implanted, would have to be removed by another surgery. When that is the position, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the claimant sustained 50% disability. However contrary to the evidence available on record, the Tribunal without giving any reasons reduced the disability that too without any discussion particularly in the absence of my contra opinion, fixed its disability at 25%. The said finding with regard to the disability is set aside and this Court determines the disability at 50% based on the PW2’S evidence. 9. Admittedly, the claimant is a Coolie who depends upon his muscle strength and physical power to do the work. With the injuries and the difficulties faced by the claimant, the claimant would not be in a position to do his normal Coolie job. Since, the claimant was aged about 43 at the time of accident, multiplier of 15 is adopted. Therefore, this Court calculates the Loss of Earning Capacity as follows: 15,000 x 15 = 2,25,000/2 = 1,12,500/- 10. In view of the amount awarded towards Loss of Earning Capacity, the amount awarded towards Disability namely Rs.25,000/- is deleted. 11. The other amountsgranted by the Tribunal i.e. Rs.5,000/- towards Pain and Suffering, Rs.1,000/- towards Transportation, Rs.1,000/- towards extra Nourishment, Rs.5,000/- towards the Loss of Earning during Treatment are confirmed. 12. Since the accident occurred in the year 1994, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 12% per annum is reduced to 9% per annum. The award of the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.37,000/- as Rs.1,24,500/- in the following manner. Loss of earning Capacity Rs.1,12,500 Loss of Earning during treatment Rs. 5,000 Pain & Suffering Rs. 5,000 Transportation Rs. 1,000 Extra-Nourishment Rs. 1,000 Total Rs.1,24,500 Though there is ample evidence available in respect the evidence of PW2-Doctor about the necessity for doing second operation to the claimant, this Court is not awarding any amount, in view of the fact that amount already awarded is considered to be just compensation. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed accordingly. There shall be no orders as to the costs.