Judgment :- 1. When the appeal came up for admission, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. The appeal is preferred by the appellant Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2010 made in MCOP.No.1439 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Krishnagiri. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The injured Amanulla met with a motor traffic accident on 13.03.2007 at about 09.30 hours. The said injured was travelling in a bus belonging to the State Transport Corporation bearing Registration No.TN-29-N-1714. The bus was proceeding in Krishnagiri-Hosur National Highways Road towards Hosur. When the bus was nearing Gurubarapalli Bus stop, opposite to I.B.P. Petrol Bunk at Gurubarapalli, at that time a lorry bearing Registration No. KA-01-AG-7799 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bus. Due to the same, the injured claimant sustained fracture and other grievous injuries all over the body resulting amputation of the right hand and claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The said lorry was insured with the appellant insurance company, who resisted the claim. 4.On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent? 2. Whether the 1st and 2nd respondents are jointly, severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner? If so, how much compensation petitioner is entitled to? 5.After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, which was insured with the appellant Insurance Company and awarded a compensation of Rs.5,97,636/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition and the details of the same are as under:- Sl.No. Heads under which the compensation awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded by the Tribunal 1 Loss of Earning Power Rs.5,61,600/- 2 Pain and Sufferings Rs. 10,000/- 3 Medical Expenses Rs. 13,836/- 4 Partial loss on convalescence period Rs. 4,500/- 5 Extra nutrition Rs. 5,000/- 6 Ambulance Expenses Rs. 1,700/-7 Attender Charges Rs. 1,000/- Total Rs.5,97,636/- Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company vehemently contended that the award passed by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification. 4,500/- 5 Extra nutrition Rs. 5,000/- 6 Ambulance Expenses Rs. 1,700/-7 Attender Charges Rs. 1,000/- Total Rs.5,97,636/- Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company vehemently contended that the award passed by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification. Further, it was contended that the Tribunal had taken monthly income at Rs.4,500/-, which is on the higher side. The Tribunal was also wrong in adopting the multiplier method in the case of injury when there is no concrete evidence available to show that 65% Permanent Disability affects the earning capacity of the claimant. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same should be set aside. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also perused the documents available on record. 8. On the side of the Claimant, the injured/Claimant himself was examined as P.W.1. P.W.2 is Dr.Gandhi and documents Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. On the side of the respondents one Mr.G.Govindhan, driver of third respondent bus was examined as RW.1 and no document was marked to substantiate their claim. Ex.P1 is the xerox copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of Wound Certificate. Ex.P3 is the Discharge Summary. Ex.P.4 is the copy of the Insurance Policy. Ex.P.5 is the Wound Certificate. Ex.P6 are Medical Bills. Ex.P.7 is the Ambulance Bill. Ex.P.8 is the copy of Passport. Ex.P.9 is the Flight Ticket Receipt Voucher. Ex.P.10 is the VISA. Ex.P.11 is X-ray. Ex.P12 is Disability Certificate. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry insured with the 2nd respondent Insurance Company and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence and in the question of fact, the same is confirmed. 9. The claimant was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident. In his evidence, he has stated that he was doing timber business and also applied passport to go to Kuwait for employment and also he attended the interview and also got VISA. Further, in the evidence of PW.1, it is stated that he was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. In his evidence, he has stated that he was doing timber business and also applied passport to go to Kuwait for employment and also he attended the interview and also got VISA. Further, in the evidence of PW.1, it is stated that he was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. Further, in his evidence, he has stated that it is only the driver of the lorry who caused the accident and he was also charge sheeted by the Gurubarapalli Police Station in Crime No.120 of 2007 under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 (A) IPC. Immediately, after the accident, he was admitted in the Government H.Q. Hospital, Krishnagiri and latter he was referred to Sanjay Gandhi Accident Hospital and Research Institute, Bangalore for better treatment. After that he had taken treatment in private hospitals at Hosur and Krishnagiri. Due to the accident, his right hand was amputated. PW.2 is Dr.Gandhi, who examined the injured-claimant. The Doctor PW.2 also in his evidence has stated that the claimant's right hand was amputated and further stated in his evidence that the claimant having only 7 inch of right hand from the shoulder and remaining portions i.e., upper arm, fore arm, wrist were removed due to smash injury. He determined the disability at 65% and the disability certificate is Ex.P12. Ex.P11 is X-ray. It is clear from the evidence of the Doctor PW.2 that there was amputation of right hand and the same affects the earning capacity. 10. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier method in the present case. In the case of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. VELUCHAMY AND ANOTHER reported in 2005 (1) CTC 38 , the Division Bench of this Court has formulated certain guidelines to be followed in the matter of adopting multiplier method, precisely in the case of permanent disability, which reads as follows. "11. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (a) In all case of injury or permanent disablement "multiplier method" cannot be mechanically applied to ascertain the future loss of income or earning power. (b) It depends upon various factors such as nature and extent of disablement, avocation of the injured and whether it would affect his employment or earning power, etc., and if so, to what extent? (b) It depends upon various factors such as nature and extent of disablement, avocation of the injured and whether it would affect his employment or earning power, etc., and if so, to what extent? (c) (1)If there is categorical evidence that because of the injury and consequential disability, the injured lost his employment or avocation completely and has to be idle till the rest of his life, in that event loss of income or earning may be ascertained by applying "multiplier method" as provided under Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (2) Even if so there is no need to adopt the same period as that of fatal cases as provided under the schedule. If there is no amputation and if there is evidence to show that there is likelihood of reduction or improvement in future years, lesser period may be adopted for ascertainment of loss of income. (d) Mainly it depends upon the avocation or profession or nature of employment being attended by the injured at the time of accident." 11. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another reported in 2010(2) TNMAC 581, the Honourable Apex Court has held as follows: "9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence (i). Whether the disablement is permanent or temporary, (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability, then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability, then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity. 10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity. 10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i). the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions, and in that event, the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less, in fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes, the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may therefore be shifted to some other suitable for lessor emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity, it may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise, there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may. 13.We may now summarise the principles discussed above: (i)All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity; (ii)The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability.) (iii)The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv)The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors." 12. The Tribunal correctly followed the principles enunciated above by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court and applied multiplier method in the present case. But, there is no concrete evidence available on record to show that the injured was earning Rs.25,000/-per month. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at Rs.4,500/- per month and determined the annual income at Rs.54,000/- (Rs.4,500 X 12 = Rs.54,000/-). But, there is no concrete evidence available on record to show that the injured was earning Rs.25,000/-per month. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at Rs.4,500/- per month and determined the annual income at Rs.54,000/- (Rs.4,500 X 12 = Rs.54,000/-). Then after considering the age of the claimant at about 35 years at the time of the accident, the Tribunal adopted multiplier of 16 and also considering 65% disability, the Tribunal computed the loss of income as follows:- Rs.54,000 X 16 X 65 / 100 = Rs.5,61,600/-. So, the Tribunal has correctly followed the principles enunciated in the above judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court. The Tribunal has also correctly fixed the monthly income at Rs.4,500/- and considering 65% disability, arrived at Rs.5,61,600/-as loss of earning power due to 65% disability. The amount awarded for loss of earning power is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. In respect of other amounts awarded under various heads, viz., Rs.10,000/- towards pain and sufferings; Rs.13,836/- towards medical expenses; Rs.4,500/- towards partial loss on convalescence period; Rs.5,000/- towards extra nutrition; Rs.1,700/- towards ambulance expenses and Rs.1,000/- towards attender charges are also very reasonable and there is no dispute regarding the same and therefore, the same are confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 6% per annum. The date of accident was 13.03.2007. Keeping in view the prevailing rate of interest during that period, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. Taking into consideration the total circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the amount awarded by Tribunal is based on valid materials. I do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal so as to warrant interference by this Court. It is not a fit case for admission. The award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same is confirmed. Therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, MP No.1 of 2011 is also dismissed. 13. Under these circumstances, the appellant is directed to deposit the award amount, less the amount already deposited if any, with interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, MP No.1 of 2011 is also dismissed. 13. Under these circumstances, the appellant is directed to deposit the award amount, less the amount already deposited if any, with interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On deposit of the same, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount with interest, less the amount already withdrawn, on making proper application.