Judgment :- 1. The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / State Transport Corporation, against the award and decree dated 13.12.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.65 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Dharmapuri. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 15.11.2002, at around 6.30 a.m., the petitioner was proceeding on a TVS-50 Moped bearing Registration No.TN 29 B 9650 from his residence to Chellampatti and at that point of time, the bus bearing Registration No.TN 55 N 0085 came from Harur towards Periyapatti, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the claim petition had been filed against the respondent for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest. 3. The respondent Corporation had filed a counter statement and opposed the claim petition. The respondent stated that the owner of the TVS 50 and its insurer were not included in the claim petition, even though, the vehicle had been involved in the said accident. The respondent denied the age, income and occupation of the claimant. The respondent further denied that the driver of the Corporation bus had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. The respondent also denied the nature of injuries and mode of treatment. The petitioner was proceeding on a TVS 50 Moped from his Village and had suddenly crossed the road in a reckless manner and dashed against the bus. The claim amount is an excessive one. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had framed two issues, namely, “(i)Did the driver of the first respondent bus commit the accident in a rash and negligent manner? (ii)Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum?” 5. On the side of the claimant 3 witnesses were examined namely, the claimant and two doctors and 19 documents were marked. On the side of the respondent, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 6. (ii)Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum?” 5. On the side of the claimant 3 witnesses were examined namely, the claimant and two doctors and 19 documents were marked. On the side of the respondent, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 6. PW1, had adduced evidence stating that on 15.11.2002, at about 6.30 a.m., he had been travelling on his TVS 50 Moped bearing Registration No.TN 20 B 9650 from his residence at Chellampatti towards Harur Road and that when he was proceeding on the Harur Thirthamalai Road, the respondent bus bearing Registration No.TN 55 N 0085 came from Harur towards Periyapatti at a high speed and driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's vehicle. In order to prove the accident, he had marked Ex.P1, First Information Report, which is registered against the driver of the respondent bus. He further stated that in the said accident, he had sustained grievous injuries on the right side of his head, right shoulder, right leg, mouth, nose, ear, right side eye besides other bodily injuries. He further stated that he was immediately taken to the Salem A.G.Neuro Hospital, wherein he had undergone treatment for two days. Thereafter, he was referred to the Bangalore St.Johns Hospital. Further, he had undergone treatment at Nimhans Hospital Bangalore. Further, he he had undergone treatment at Salem Kumaramangalam Hospital. He further stated that in all the hospitals, he had undergone treatment as inpatient. In order to prove the nature of treatment, mode of treatment and period of treatment, he had marked Ex.P2-Wound Certificate, issued by the Harur Government Hospital, Ex.P3-Wound Certificate issued by the A.G.Neuro Private Hospital, Salem, Ex.P5-Medical Records issued by the Nimhans Hospital, Bangalore, Ex.P6-Medical Report, issued by the Salem Mohan Kumaramangalam Hospital. 7. PW3- Dr.Ashok Kumar, a Neurologist and PW2-Dr.Shankar, Orthopaedist had examined the claimant and issued disability certificate certifying disability at 35% and 30% respectively, which are marked as Exs.P-18 and P-19. PW2, had adduced evidence stating that the claimant's right collar bone and shoulder bone were fractured in the accident. Both the bones have become bent and un-united. Therefore, the claimant would be unable to carry any weight on his hands. PW2 had stated that the claimant's right side skull bone was fractured and scattered. PW2, had adduced evidence stating that the claimant's right collar bone and shoulder bone were fractured in the accident. Both the bones have become bent and un-united. Therefore, the claimant would be unable to carry any weight on his hands. PW2 had stated that the claimant's right side skull bone was fractured and scattered. The claimant's 8th nerve in his brain was affected, so his right ear has been impaired. 8. After considering the evidence of the witnesses, the Tribunal had awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.4,93,680/- to the claimant, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 9. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the appellant has filed the above appeal. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the assessments of the disability at 35% and 30% by both the doctors, are on the higher side. The Tribunal had adopted multiplier method and awarded compensation for a sum of Rs.3,74,400/- under the head of disability, besides, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- for loss of amenities; Rs.40,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.4,000/- towards nutrition; for damage to vehicle and clothes Rs.5,000/- had been granted; for future medical expenses Rs.20,000/- had been granted and Rs.4,930/- had been granted towards medical expenses; for transport expenses Rs.3,750/- had been granted and for C.T.Scan expenses Rs.1,600/- had been granted. The learned counsel further argued that the above mentioned compensation had not been properly arrived at and it has been granted in an arbitrary manner. 11. The learned counsel further argued that the claimant had driven his TVS 50 Moped in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus. As such, contributory negligence is involved in this case. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant emphatically argued that the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal is not pertinent in this case, since the claimant's avocation as a milk vendor had not been affected. 13. The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant's age was 20 years at the time of accident and he was engaged in agricultural operations as well as being a milk-vendor. His earning was Rs.6,000/- per month. After the accident, his brain was affected. Besides, he had sustained bone fracture injuries on his shoulder and collar bone, which have become bent and un-united. Now, the claimant is in a vegetative state. His earning was Rs.6,000/- per month. After the accident, his brain was affected. Besides, he had sustained bone fracture injuries on his shoulder and collar bone, which have become bent and un-united. Now, the claimant is in a vegetative state. The learned counsel further argued that after the accident, the 20 year old claimant has lost his prospects in life, since his brain had been affected. In order to prove the brain injuries 8th nerve cut in the brain, the neurologist had adduced evidence. The learned counsel further argued that the claimant's marriage prospects have become diminished. The learned counsel for the claimant has cited judgments, which are as follows:- (i)Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr. reported in 2010 (6) S 844 “(a)Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation - The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was in so far as money can. (b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - The multiplier method still holds the field with variations in maximum multiplier - Instantly, a multiplier of 18 would be justified. (1994) 2 SCC 176 ; (2009) 6 SCC 121 - Relied upon (c)Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Second Schedule - Second Schedule having no application, there is no need to await decision of the larger Bench referred in (2009) 13 SCC 422 . (2009) 13 SCC 422 - Referred” (ii)New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. C.K. Ramesh reported in 2011 ACJ 281 “Quantum - Injury - Principles of assessment - Multiplier method - Injured suffered 50 per cent disablement - Insurance Company contended that Court can adopt multiplier method only if the injured is permanently disabled or prevented for doing his routine work or profession - Whether multiplier method can be adopted only where permanent disability prevented injured from doing his routine work or profession - Held: no; case-law applying use of multiplier method in injury cases discussed. [ 2005 ACJ 1483 (Madras), 2003 ACJ 1775 (SC), 2007 ACJ 2468 (SC), 2008 ACJ 9 (SC) and 2009 ACJ 663 (SC) relied ]” (iii)Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 “A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss.166, 163-A and Sch.II-Permanent disability-Compensation-Award of-Assessment of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability-Detailed principles for, laid down-Functional disability as operative criterion distinguished from physical disability-Disability Certificate-Mode of assessment based upon-Types of disability, distinguished - Held, in disability certificate extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) cannot be assumed to be extent of disability of whole body-Tribunal should not mechanically apply percentage of permanent physical disability as percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity, but must assess functional disability-Directions given to Tribunals in respect of procedure/steps to be followed in such cases-Tort Law-Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Ss.3,4 and Schs. I and IV.” (iv)National Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Hamnawaz reported in 2011 ACJ 456 “Quantum - Injury - Paraplegia - Injured sustained injuries due to which both his lower limbs became non-functional-Due to non-functioning of sphincter muscles injured has lost control over his bladder and bowel movement-injured aged 27, is dependent on others for doing his routine work and requires an attendant for the rest of his life-Injured cannot work and he is not capable to earn anything in future-Tribunal assessed income at Rs.4,000 p.m., adopted multiplier of 18 and assessing loss of earning capacity at 100 per cent allowed Rs.8,64,000 plus Rs.3,55,484 for medical expenses, Rs.1,32,000 for loss of income during trial, Rs.1,50,000 for pain and suffering and Rs.1,50,000 for loss of amenities of life-Appellate Court awarded Rs.2,00,000/- for loss of amenities of life and Rs.1,00,000 for future attendant expenses and enhanced the award from Rs.16,51,484 to Rs.18,01,484.” (v)United India Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Roopa Saharan reported in 2011 ACJ 515 “Negligence - Contributory negligence - Collision between a two-wheeler and car and two-wheeler rider sustained injuries-Injured claimed that she was waiting for crossing the road to her right side at the opening of the central divider having 30 ft. wide road on both sides of the median when the accident occurred-Defence that claimant suddenly rushed to other side of median without stopping at the opening and without looking for oncoming traffic on the opposite side-Sketch drawn by police and its correctness admitted by the claimant does not support her case-According to sketch collision took place at a distance of 15 ft., from central divider towards the opposite road which indicates that claimant had proceeded at the opening of the median without stopping at its entrance-Two-wheeler had covered 15 ft., from median on opposite side of the road, car driver must have seen her from a fairly long distance and he failed to control his vehicle-Tribunal held that both the drivers were rash and negligent and apportioned their blameworthiness as 80:20 for car driver and the claimant-Appellate Court held that both the drivers were equally negligent.” 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal and compensation awarded under the head of disability is not pertinent in this case. Therefore, this Court grants the compensation as follows:- Rs.1,30,000/- for disability of 65%; Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.10,000/- towards transport; Rs.10,000/- towards nutrition; Rs.10,000/- towards attender charges; Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of comfort and loss of amenities; Rs.50,000/- towards future loss of earning capacity; Rs.30,000/- towards loss of earning during medical treatment period and convalescent period. In total, this Court awards Rs.3,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Therefore, this Court has scaled down the original compensation granted from Rs.4,93,680/- to Rs.3,50,000/- with interest, as it is found to be fair and equitable. 15. This Court imposed a condition on the appellant on 05.09.2005 to deposit the entire compensation amount and after such deposit being made, the claimant was permitted to withdraw 50% of the award amount together with interest accrued thereon. Now, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the balance compensation as mentioned above with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.65 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Dharmapuri, after filing necessary payment out of application, in accordance with law, subject to withdrawals, if any made already, as per this Hon'ble Court's order. Likewise, the appellant is at liberty to withdraw the excess compensation amount with accrued interest thereon after observing necessary formalities of the learned Tribunal. 16. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, on the file of Sub Court, Dharmapuri, made in M.C.O.P.No.65 of 2003, dated 13.12.2004 is modified. There is no order as to costs.