Judgment :- 1. The above appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award and decree dated 30.04.2002 made in M.C.O.P.No.263 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore. 2. The short facts of the case, are, as follows: On 12.07.1998, at about 05.00 p.m., the petitioner was standing on the northern side of the east-pondy road and at that point of time, the respondent's vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-32-0106, came from west to east direction, at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries. Hence, he had filed the compensation petition against the respondent for a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs with interest. 3. The respondent had filed a counter statement and opposed the claim petition. The respondent denied that the accident was committed by the driver of the vehicle. On 12.07.1998, the respondent's vehicle was proceeding in the east-pondy road towards Villupuram and at that point of time, the petitioner and one Senthilkumaran travelling in a T.V.S.50 moped bearing Registration No.PY-01-J-8307, suddenly crossed the road and as such invited the accident. The owner of the T.V.S. 50 moped and Insurance Company are necessary parties in this case, but they were not impleaded in the case. Therefore, the O.P. is not maintainable. The respondent further denied the age, income and occupation of the claimant. 4. In the said accident, two claimants have filed separate O.P's. So, the Tribunal disposed the case with a common Judgment. The Tribunal, on considering the pleadings of the parties had framed two issues, viz., “1. Who was responsible for the accident? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?” 5. On the side of the claimant, four witnesses were examined, 75 documents were marked. Out of this, the relevant documents produced by the claimants are as follows:- 1. First Information Report 2. Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report for both vehicles 3. Wound Certificate 4. Medical discharge summary 5. Employment Identity card 6. Medical bill series, etc., 6. On the side of the claimant, four witnesses were examined, 75 documents were marked. Out of this, the relevant documents produced by the claimants are as follows:- 1. First Information Report 2. Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report for both vehicles 3. Wound Certificate 4. Medical discharge summary 5. Employment Identity card 6. Medical bill series, etc., 6. P.W.1 has adduced evidence stating that on 12.07.1998, at about 05.00 p.m., he and another claimant were standing on the east-pondy road by the side of his vehicle and at that time, the respondent's vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-32-0106 and driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the them. In the result, he had sustained injuries. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Villupuram, for preliminary treatment. Thereafter, he was referred to the Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry, for further treatment. P.W.1, further stated that at the time of accident, he was aged about 23 years and was working as Junior Assistant in the office of the Telephone Department and was earning a sum of Rs.4,500/-. He further stated that he had sustained injuries on his left thigh, head, eye, rib-bone, etc. After the accident, he is unable to walk and stand for a long time. Besides, he has undergone treatment at Puthur bone setting Hospital. His left leg was shortened by 3 c.m.s. 7. P.W.3, the doctor, had adduced evidence stating that he had examined the claimant and verified the medical records. Thereafter, he assessed the disability at 80%. He further stated that the claimant's left leg thigh bone had sustained crush injury and his muscles have lost its strength. The claimant's 10th and 11th rib bones have been fractured. 8. On considering the evidences of the witnesses, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.5,96,500/-. The breakup of compensation is as follows:- Rs.32,400/- towards transport charges; Rs.67,102/- towards medical expenses; Rs.3,000/- towards nutritious food; Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.25,000/- towards grievous injuries; and Rs.4,63,998/- towards loss of earning Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has filed the present appeal to scale down the same. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant emphatically argued that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had adopted multiplier method and awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.4,63,998/- towards loss of income. The claimant is a Junior Assistant attached to the Telephone Department and his avocation was not at all affected. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant emphatically argued that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had adopted multiplier method and awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.4,63,998/- towards loss of income. The claimant is a Junior Assistant attached to the Telephone Department and his avocation was not at all affected. Hence, multiplier method is not relevant in the instant case. Further, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards grievous injuries which is also not appropriate. The learned counsel further argued that though the leg has been shortened by 3 c.ms., there was no amputation of leg. 10. Learned counsel for the claimant argued that in the said accident, the claimant's leg had been shortened by 3 c.ms. and his rib bones were fractured. The same was examined by the doctor, who assessed the disability as 80%. As such, the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal is proper. Supporting his contention, the learned counsel cited two Judgments, which reads as follows:- i) Rajendra Vs. Pradeep Patwari and others ( 2009 ACJ 2864 ):- “Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 163-A - Quantum - Injury - Hand and leg - Fractures in left hand and right leg - Rods were inserted in both the limbs - Injured aged 25, professor, drawing Rs.3,000/- p.m., suffered 35 percent disablement - Tribunal awarded Rs.1,50,137/- towards medical expenses, pain and suffering and disablement - High Court enhanced the award to Rs.1,75,000/- without assigning any reason - Apex Court adopted multiplier of 17 and allowed Rs.2,14,000/- for loss of income plus medical expenses incurred by the claimant and compensation on other heads as awarded by the Tribunal.” ii) Prabsharan Singh Vs. The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited (2011 (1) C.L.T. 439):- “Accident alleged as caused by driver of public transport bus by driving in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and dashing against the Maruthi Car driven by appellant - As a resulting in sustained grievous injuries of claimant - Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.5,18,360/- is awarded towards compensation - But appellant claimed he has spent two third more amount in Medical expenses - Appeal in High Court - HELD, contention of appellant based on 2006 ACJ 1365, decision invoking provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act merits to be accepted and applied in present case too - Expert assessment of disability was at 50% - Even though the Tribunal accepted earnings of claimant at Rs.10,000/- based on claimants Income Tax Statement, in absence of any evidence regarding his self employment, the Court took earnings of claimant at Rs.5,000/- Claimant is entitled to get enhancement in relief towards loss of income (Para 6).” 11. The learned counsel further argued that the claimant is entitled to receive compensation under the heads of attendant charges and loss of income during medical treatment period and convalescent period. This has not been considered by the Tribunal. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimant's avocation has not been affected, since he is working in the same department in the same post, his income has also not been affected. Though, the claimant's leg has been shortened of 3 c.ms., there has been no amputation. Therefore, this Court grants compensation to the claimant, are as follows:- Rs.1,60,000/- towards disability of 80%; Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.67,102/- towards medical expenses; Rs.32,400/- towards transport charges; Rs.5,000/- towards nutritious food; Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges; Rs.25,000/- towards loss of earning during the medical treatment period and convalescent period; and Rs.75,000/- towards loss of comfort and loss of amenities. In total this Court grants a sum of Rs.3,94,502/- as compensation. Therefore, the original award of a sum of Rs.5,96,500/- granted by the Tribunal has been scaled down to Rs.3,94,502/-. 13. This Court imposed a condition on 09.08.2006 to the appellant to deposit 50% of the amount awarded together with interest into the credit of M.C.O.P.No.263 of 1999. In total this Court grants a sum of Rs.3,94,502/- as compensation. Therefore, the original award of a sum of Rs.5,96,500/- granted by the Tribunal has been scaled down to Rs.3,94,502/-. 13. This Court imposed a condition on 09.08.2006 to the appellant to deposit 50% of the amount awarded together with interest into the credit of M.C.O.P.No.263 of 1999. After deducting this amount, the balance compensation as mentioned above has to be deposited by the appellant 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, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, as this is found to be fair and equitable. On such deposit, being made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.263 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore, after filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law. 14. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree dated 30.04.2002, made in M.C.O.P.No.263 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore, is modified. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. There is no order as to costs.