JUDGMENT :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant – Insurance Company against the Judgment and Decree dated 14.03.2007 made in O.P.No.632 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Gingee. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 01.09.2004 at about 10.00 a.m., when the claimant was working in the field, the Tractor bearing Registration No.TN30-W-2692, belonging to the 2nd respondent herein and insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, came in a rash and negligent manner and also at high speed and hit the claimant. Due to the said impact, the claimant had sustained multiple fractures and immediately, he was given first aid in a private hospital, Chetpet and later, took treatment at Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry and Government General Hospital, Chennai. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-as compensation. The said Tractor was insured with the appellant - Insurance company, who resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to the compensation?. If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 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 Tractor and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,86,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of Income due to 35% of disability - Rs.3,36,000/- Pain and suffering - Rs. 30,000/- Extra nourishment - Rs. 15,000/-Transport Charges - Rs. 5,000/- ------------------ Total - Rs.3,86,000/- ------------------ Aggrieved by that award, the appellant - Insurance Company has filed the present appeal for reduction. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification. He further contended that the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the injured at Rs.3,000/- p.m. without any basis. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. He further contended that the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the injured at Rs.3,000/- p.m. without any basis. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal has considered the facts and circumstances of the case and awarded compensation, which is just, fair and reasonable and based on the valid materials and evidence. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard both sides and perused the documents on record. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no one was examined and no documents were marked to substantiate their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. PW2 is Dr.Ponnappan. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report. Ex.P3 is the copy of the Wound Certificate issued by the Government General Hospital, Chennai. Ex.P4 is the copy of the document with regard to treatment taken as in-patient in the Government General Hospital, Chennai. Ex.P5 is the Settlement, which was sent by the Insurance Company to the claimant. Ex.P6 is the Disability Certificate. Ex.P7 is the X-ray. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor. The finding is based on valid materials and evidence and the same is confirmed. 6. At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 41 years. P.W.1, in his evidence has stated that he was a agriculturist and he was owner of six acres agricultural land and was earning not less than Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- p.m. Further, he deposed that the driver of the Tractor caused the accident and the driver was also charge sheeted by Avalurpet Police Station in Crime No.277 of 2004 under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. Due to the said accident, the claimant sustained fracture, sheft of left femur mid 3rd closed, communated, displaced and injured all over the body. Immediately, he was given first aid at Private Hospital, Chetpet and later, he was referred to the Government General Hospital, Chennai. Due to the said accident, the claimant sustained fracture, sheft of left femur mid 3rd closed, communated, displaced and injured all over the body. Immediately, he was given first aid at Private Hospital, Chetpet and later, he was referred to the Government General Hospital, Chennai. Further, he stated that twice he undergone surgeries in the Government Hospital, Chennai and a plate was also inserted in the left leg. Due to the same, he is unable to walk, stand and sit substantially and he is also unable to do work as before. Ex.P4 is the discharge summary. P.W.2-Doctor, who examined the claimant, has also stated that a surgery was done on his left leg and plate was also inserted. Due to the same, the movement of the left leg was restricted by 200. Further, he has stated that the claimant cannot walk and stand substantially. Considering the same, the Doctor assessed the disability at 35% sustained by the claimant and issued Ex.P6-Disability Certificate. There is evidence available on record to show that 35% disability affect the earning capacity of the claimant. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in coming to the conclusion that the disability would certainly affect the earning capacity and adopted the multiplier method for determining the loss of income due to 35% disability. 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? (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. (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." The Supreme Court in the case of A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. By its Chief Law Officer V. M. Pentaiah Chary, 2007 (2) TN MAC 152 (SC), held as follows: "13. We therefore, fail to visualize that in a case of this nature a claimant can be deprived of a reasonable amount of Compensation despite the fact that he has permanently lost his capacity to earn and remain dependent on other besides physical sufferance of such magnitude as to why the multiplier suggested by the parliament should not be accepted. 14. We do not, however, intend to lay down a general law. We wish to point out that minimum Compensation payable in a case of this nature should be considered from the sufferings of disability undergone by the victim. We are not suggesting that in certain situations, the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule cannot and should not be altered but therefor there must exist strong circumstances." Taking note of the principles enunciated in the above Judgements, I am of the view that the Tribunal is correct in adopting multiplier method for determining the loss of income due to 35% disability. The Tribunal fixed the income of the injured at Rs.5,000/- p.m. and determined the annual income at Rs.60,000/- (Rs.5,000/- x 12). After considering the age and disability of the injured, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 16' and determined the loss of income due to 35% disability at Rs.3,36,000/- (Rs.60,000/- x 16 x 35%). The Tribunal fixed the income of the injured at Rs.5,000/- p.m. and determined the annual income at Rs.60,000/- (Rs.5,000/- x 12). After considering the age and disability of the injured, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 16' and determined the loss of income due to 35% disability at Rs.3,36,000/- (Rs.60,000/- x 16 x 35%). The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company vehemently contended that in the claim petition itself, the monthly income of the claimant was shown as Rs.4,500/-p.m. But the Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.5,000/-without no basis. After considering the facts and circumstances of case, it is reasonable to fix the monthly income of the injured at Rs.3,000/- as per Minimum Wages Act and the annual income works out to Rs.36,000/-. Considering the age of the claimant, if multiplier of 16 is adopted, the loss of income due to 35% disability works out to Rs.2,01,600/- (Rs.36,000/- x 16) as against a sum of Rs.3,36,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is excessive and it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- under this head. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment, which is also excessive and it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- under this head. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges, which is reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. The date of accident is 01.09.2004. Keeping in view the prevailing rate of interest at the time of accident, the date of award, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Loss of Income due to 35% of disability - Rs.2,01,600/- Pain and suffering - Rs. 20,000/- Extra nourishment - Rs. 10,000/- Transport Charges - Rs. 5,000/- ------------------ Total - Rs.2,36,600/- ------------------ Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.2,36,600/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition as against a sum of Rs.3,86,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. 7. 20,000/- Extra nourishment - Rs. 10,000/- Transport Charges - Rs. 5,000/- ------------------ Total - Rs.2,36,600/- ------------------ Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.2,36,600/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition as against a sum of Rs.3,86,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. 7. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company that the entire award amount has been deposited with interest at 7.5% p.a. Under those circumstances, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified award amount of Rs.2,36,600/- with interest at 7.5% p.a., less the amount, if any, already withdrawn, on making proper application. The Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the balance amount, on making proper application. 8. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.