Judgment :- 1. The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / State Transport Corporation, against the award and decree dated 28.12.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.110 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Special Court, Krishnagiri. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 27.10.2003, at around 5.45 a.m., when the petitioner was standing at the Hosur bus stand, the respondent's Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN 29 N 1055 driven by its driver at a high speed and in a reckless manner dashed against the petitioner. In the result, the petitioner had sustained bone fracture injuries. Hence, he had filed the compensation petition against the respondent for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-with interest. 3. The respondent / Transport Corporation had filed a counter statement and denied that the accident had been committed by the driver of the bus. The respondent further stated that the claim amount is an excessive one and he denied the age, income and occupation of the claimant. 4. On the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration, namely; “(i) Who was responsible for the accident? (ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation?” 5. On the side of the claimant, two witnesses had been examined, namely, PW1, the claimant and PW2, the Doctor and five documents were marked, namely, First Information Report, Wound Certificate, Medical Discharge Summary, Medical Bill Series and Disability Certificate. On the side of the respondent, RW1, the driver of the bus was examined. 6. PW1 had adduced evidence stating that on 17.10.2003, when he was standing at Hosur bus stop, in order to go to Bangalore, the respondent's bus came behind him and dashed against him. Immediately, he was taken to the Hosur Hospital for preliminary treatment, thereafter, he was referred to St.Johns Hospital, Bangalore, wherein he had undergone treatment for a period of 17 days. He further stated that he had sustained rib bone fracture injuries and had also sustained injuries on his chest. PW2, the Doctor had adduced evidence that he examined the claimant and verified the medical records and assessed the disability at 25%. He further stated that the claimant's membrane was removed from the liver and the claimant had sustained a permanent scar on his forehead. 7. PW2, the Doctor had adduced evidence that he examined the claimant and verified the medical records and assessed the disability at 25%. He further stated that the claimant's membrane was removed from the liver and the claimant had sustained a permanent scar on his forehead. 7. On considering the evidence of the witnesses, the Tribunal had awarded a compensation of a sum of Rs.1,45,900/-. The breakup of compensation are as under:- Rs.48,000/- for loss of income; Rs.5,000/- for grievous injuries; Rs.2,000/- for simple injuries; Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.33,000/- for medical expenses; Rs.4,000/- for purchase of blood; Rs.500/- for transport; Rs.1,400/- towards attender charges; Rs.2,000/- for loss of income during medical treatment period & Rs.25,000/- for disability. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the claimant had sustained simple injuries but the Tribunal had adopted multiplier method and awarded the compensation under the head of loss of income, which is not proper. The learned counsel further argued that the Tribunal had awarded compensations for grievous and simple injuries respectively, which are also not proper. 9. The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant had sustained bone fractures in his rib bone. As per doctor's evidence, a membrane was removed from the claimant's liver. Therefore, there is no possibility of a membrane being formed again in the organ. As such, the injury is permanent in nature. The claimant has sustained 25% disability. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that multiplier method had been adopted by the Tribunal and a compensation awarded under the head of disability and the Tribunal had also awarded compensations under the head of grievous injuries and simple injuries and these are all not relevant. Hence, this Court modifies the compensation as follows:- Rs.50,000/- towards disability; Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.35,000/- for medical bills; Rs.4,000/- for blood purchase charges; Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges Rs.5,000/- against nutrition; Rs.5,000/- for attender charges; Rs.6,000/- for loss of income during medical treatment period In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, which is fair and equitable. Therefore, this Court scales down the compensation from Rs.1,45,900/- to Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation. 11. This Court imposed a condition on the appellant / Transport Corporation on 29.08.2005 to deposit 50% of the award amount with accrued interest to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.110 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Special Court, Krishnagiri. Therefore, this Court hereby directs the appellant / Transport Corporation, to deposit the balance modified compensation amount as mentioned above with accrued interest to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.110 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Special Court, Krishnagiri within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, subject to deductions, if any already deposited. After such a deposit, being made it is open to the claimant to withdraw the balance modified compensation with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.110 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Special Court, Krishnagiri after filing necessary payment out of application in accordance with law, subject to withdrawals if any made already, as per this Court order. 12. 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 Additional Special Court, Krishnagiri, made in M.C.O.P.No.110 of 2004, dated 28.12.2004 is modified. There is no order as to costs.