Judgment :- 1. The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / National Insurance Company Limited against the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.103 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Arni at Tiruvannamalai District. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 09.06.2005, at around 8.45 p.m., the petitioner was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN22-F-5543 from Vellore to Arcot, when at that point of time, the first respondent's mini lorry bearing Registration No.TN23-A-7893 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed came from the opposite direction, and dashed against the motorcyclist. As a result, he had sustained grievous injuries including bone fractures. Hence, the claim petition has been filed against the respondents for a compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest. 3. The Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent stated that the insurer of the motorcycle is a responsible party for paying compensation, since the accident was committed by the rider of the motorcycle. Age, income and occupation of the claimant are denied. Besides the claim amount is excessive. 4. On the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration, namely; “(i) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? (ii) If so, what is the quantum of compensation?” 5. On the side of the claimant two witnesses had been examined and seven documents were marked, which are as follows:- First Information Report, Wound Certificate, Medical Bills, Discharge Summary and Disability Certificate etc.,. On the side of the respondent there is no witness and no document. 6. PW1 had adduced evidence stating that he had sustained injuries on his right eye, cheek, upper lip and chin besides injuries to head and various parts of the body. At the time of the accident his age was 30 years and he was engaged in the teaching profession as a teacher and earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month. He further stated that initially he had undergone treatment at C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore, thereafter he underwent treatment at K.H.Appolo Hospital, Vizaram, thereafter, he underwent treatment as outpatient for a lengthy period. PW2 had examined the claimant and verified the medical records and assessed the disability as 60%. On the side of the respondent there is no evidence and no document. He further stated that initially he had undergone treatment at C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore, thereafter he underwent treatment at K.H.Appolo Hospital, Vizaram, thereafter, he underwent treatment as outpatient for a lengthy period. PW2 had examined the claimant and verified the medical records and assessed the disability as 60%. On the side of the respondent there is no evidence and no document. 7. On the availability of the evidences, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.3,22,865/-with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as compensation. The breakup of compensation is as follows:- Loss of income to claimant (Rs.3,000 x 12 x 2/3 x 17 x 60/100) .. Rs.2,44,800/-For three simple injuries .. Rs.7,500/- For pain and suffering .. Rs.2,500/- Nutrition ..Rs.2,500/- For medical expenses .. Rs.65,565/- 8. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has filed the above appeal. 9. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company emphatically argued that the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,44,800/- under the head of 'disability' after adopting the multiplier method, which is inappropriate in the instant case, since the claimant's avocation was not at all affected. Further, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.65,565/- towards medical expenses, which is also on the higher side. 10. Learned counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant had sustained grievous injuries including bone fractures. He had undergone treatment at C.M.C.Hospital, Vellore and Apollo Hospital, Vizaram for a lengthy period both as inpatient and outpatient. The doctor assessed the disability as 60%. The award amount under the heads of Nutrition, pain and suffering are on the lower side. The Tribunal had not considered the compensation under the heads of transport, attender charges and loss of income during the medical treatment period and convalescent period. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.7,500/- for three injuries which is not pertinent, since the award was assessed for the disability . 12. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.7,500/- for three injuries which is not pertinent, since the award was assessed for the disability . 12. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal is not appropriate, therefore, this Court restructures the compensation, which are as follows:- Rs.1,20,000/- towards disability; Rs.65,565/- towards medical expenses; Rs.5,000/- against nutrition; Rs.5,000/- for attender charges; Rs.5,000/- towards transport; Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering Rs.7,500/- for loss of earning during medical treatment period and convalescent period. In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs.2,23,065/-. Therefore, this Court scales down the compensation from Rs.3,22,865/- to Rs.2,23,065/- and this amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, which is found to be fair and justifiable. This Court directs the appellant / Insurance Company to comply with this Court order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. After such compliance being made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the modified compensation amount with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.103 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Arni at Tiruvannamalai District, after filing a Memo along with this order. 13. Resultantly, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the file of Subordinate Judge, Arni at Tiruvannamalai District made in M.C.O.P.No.103 of 2005, dated 10.09.2008 is modified. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.