Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and decree 04.03.2010 made in M.C.O.P. No.1454 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II), Salem. 2. The background facts in a nutshell, are, as follows:- On 19.07.2004, at about 9.00 p.m., the first respondent/P.Seenivasan met with motor vehicle accident. The claimant after purchase of fabrics at Salem, he engaged a van bearing Registration No.TN-47-B-0772 for hire to transport the fabrics from Sellanaickenpatty to Erode. The claimant was also travelling in the van. When the van was nearing Komberipatty Medu, the driver drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and hit against a lorry, bearing Registration No.TAL-9950, which was parked on the road side. Due to the said impact, the first respondent/claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, after the accident, he was admitted in the Salem Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Hospital. He claimed a compensation of Rs.16,92,000/- before the Tribunal. The said van was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, who resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the accident was caused due to thresh and negligent driving of the offending van by its driver? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation from the appellant-Insurance 3. To what relief?" 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 van and awarded a compensation of Rs.7,24,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum and proportionate cost. The details of the same are as under:- Loss due to 100% disability Rs. 4,95,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 60,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 20,000/- Transport expenses Rs. 15,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 1,09,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/- ------------------ Total...Rs. 7,24,000/- ----------------- Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that they are not liable to pay compensation on the ground that the claimant travelled in the goods vehicle as an unauthorised passenger. Further, he contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Further, he contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents available on record. On the side of the first respondent/claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.20 were marked. On the side of the appellant-Insurance Company, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R.1 was marked, to substantiate their claim. The claimant was examined as P.W.1. one Govindaraj, co-passenger was examined as P.W.2. Doctor Sridhar was examined as P.W.3. Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of First Information Report. Ex.P.2 is the A.R. Copy of the claimant. Ex.P.3 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report (van). Ex.P.4 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report (lorry-TAL-9950). Ex.P.5 is the Charge sheet. Ex.P.6 is the complaint by Shanmughavel. Ex.P.7 is the statement of Seenivasan/claimant. Ex.P.8 is the S.T.R. extract. Ex.P.9 is the salary certificate. Ex.P.10 is the Sivasakthi Textiles Invoice, Bill. Ex.P.11 is the rough sketch. Ex.P.12 is the wound certificate of the claimant. Ex.P.13 is the medical prescriptions. Ex.P.14 is the medical bills. Ex.P.15 is the X-ray (18). Ex.P.16 is the scan report. Ex.P.17 is the scan. Ex.P.18 is the discharge summary. Ex.19 is the disability certificate. Ex.P.20 is the X-ray. R.W.1-Isaiamudhu is the officer of the Insurance coompany. Ex.R.1 is the copy of the Insurance policy. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving driver of the van and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. At the time of the accident, the claimant Seenivasan was aged about 37 years and he was working as Senior Checking Inspector and Quality Controller in Anupam Handlooms, Periyar Nagar, Erode and was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. 6. At the time of the accident, the claimant Seenivasan was aged about 37 years and he was working as Senior Checking Inspector and Quality Controller in Anupam Handlooms, Periyar Nagar, Erode and was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. P.W.1, in his evidence, has stated that the driver the van caused the accident and a case has been registered by Attayampatty Police Station, in Crime No.196 of 2004. Further, in his evidence, the claimant stated that he sustained fractures, i.e., amputation of left hand, fracture in the jaw bone, fracture in the hip-thigh bone, head injury and multiple injuries in the face and all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem and later he was referred to V.C.S. Hospital, Erode and Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore, for better treatment. He was taken treatment as inpatient from 19.07.2004 to 21.07.2004 at Salem Government M.K.M.C. Hospital, 21.07.2004 to 26.07.2004 at Erode V.C.S. Hospital and 26.07.2004 to 21.08.2004 at Coimbatore Ganga Hospital. Ex.P.12 is the wound certificate and Ex.P.18 is the discharge summary. P.W.3 is the doctor, who examined the claimant, has determined the disability at 120% and the details of the same are as under:- Crush injury left arm above elbow amputation 70% Fracture of Zygoma 10% Fracture of Scapula 10% Fracture of 2-10 ribs left side 15% Fracture of acetabulum left 15% ----------- Total... 120% ----------- Further, in Ex.P.18 discharge summary it is stated that the claimant was sustained injury in his eye, which partially affects the vision and also he lost the left hand. There is no dispute regarding the same. It is also clear that after the accident he removed from service. Considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the Senior Checking Inspector of Handlooms could earn not less than Rs.4,000/- per month and fixed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/-. Out of the said sum, the Tribunal deducted Rs.1,250/- towards personal expenses and taken the balance sum of Rs.2,750/- (Rs.4,000/- - Rs.1,250/-) as monthly contribution to his family and determined the annual income at Rs.33,000/- (Rs.2,750 x 12). Out of the said sum, the Tribunal deducted Rs.1,250/- towards personal expenses and taken the balance sum of Rs.2,750/- (Rs.4,000/- - Rs.1,250/-) as monthly contribution to his family and determined the annual income at Rs.33,000/- (Rs.2,750 x 12). In this case, after taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained and also fact that the claimant lost his employment due to the injury and he is unable to do any work, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier 15' and arrived at the loss of income at Rs.4,95,000/-(Rs.33,000/- x 15). The Tribunal has correctly estimated the monthly as well as annual income. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that it is not a fit case for adopting multiplier method and the Tribunal has erred in adopting the multiplier in the case of injury. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that when the disability affects 100% of the earning capacity of the injured for determining the loss of income, the Courts may adopting the multiplier method in this case, the claimant lost his job. It is well settled principle that when the disability affects 100% earning capacity, for determining loss of income, multiplier method should be adopted and in the case of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANYLIMITED 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. (2) Even if so there is no need to adopt the same period as that of fatal cases as provided under the schedule. (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." 7. 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." 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, 2010 (2) TN MAC 581 (SC), held as follows:- "5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary Damages (Special Damages): (i) Expenses relating to Treatment, Hospitalization, Medicines, Transportation, Nourishing food, and Miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of Earning during the period of Treatment; (b) Loss of Future Earnings on account of Permanent Disability. (iii) Future Medical Expenses. Non-pecuniary Damages (General Damages): (iv) Damages for Pain, Suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of Amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of Expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). (iii) Future Medical Expenses. Non-pecuniary Damages (General Damages): (iv) Damages for Pain, Suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of Amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of Expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to Loss of Future Earnings on account of Permanent Disability, future Medical Expenses, Loss of Amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and Loss of Expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of Future Medical Expenses – item (iii) – depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of Non-Pecuniary Damages – items (iv), (v) and (vi) – involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the Claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the Claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the Loss of Future Earnings on account of Permanent Disability – item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. Assessment of Future Loss of Earnings due to Permanent Disability. 6. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being. Permanent Disability refers to the residuary incapacity of loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent Disability can be either partial or total. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent Disability can be either partial or total. Partial Permanent Disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total Permanent Disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ('Disabilities Act' for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation. 7. The percentage of Permanent Disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered Permanent Disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% Permanent Disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% Permanent Disability of the right hand and 80% Permanent Disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of Permanent Disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the Permanent Disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100% 8. If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the Permanent Disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100% 8. Where the Claimant suffers a Permanent Disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of Loss of Future Earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such Permanent Disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of Permanent Disability as the percentage of economic loss or Loss of Earning Capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of Loss of Earning Capacity, arising from a Permanent Disability will be different from the percentage of Permanent Disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of Permanent Disability would result in a corresponding Loss of Earning Capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the Permanent Disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of Loss of Earning Capacity to the extent (percentage) of Permanent Disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the Loss of Earning Capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of Loss of Earning Capacity as a result of the Permanent Disability, is approximately the same as the percentage or Permanent Disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation (see for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2010 (10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar Vs. D.M., National Insurance Co. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2010 (10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar Vs. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2010 (2) TN MAC 356 (SC) : 2010 (8) SCALE 567)." Taking note of the principles enunciated in the above Judgements, I am of the view that the Tribunal is correct in adopting the multiplier method in the present case. In this case, a specific finding was given by the Tribunal that the disability affected the earning capacity of the claimant. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income at Rs.4,95,000/- is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- under the head of pain and suffering, which is on the higher side. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head of pain and suffering as against Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head of extra nourishment, which is on the higher side. The claimant took treatment as in patient for more than a month. Hence, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head of transport expenses. But, no document has been filed to prove same. Hence, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of transport expenses as against Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,09,000/- under the head of medical expenses. Ex.P.14, is the series of medical bills. Hence the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head is on the higher side and it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head as against Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 7.5% per annum. The accident has occurred on 19.07.2004. Considering the prevailing rate of interest on that date, I feel that the 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 due to 100% disability Rs. 4,95,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. Considering the prevailing rate of interest on that date, I feel that the 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 due to 100% disability Rs. 4,95,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 15,000/- Transport expenses Rs. 10,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 1,09,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 20,000/- ------------------ Total...Rs. 6,89,000/- ----------------- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.6,89,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition as against the compensation of Rs.7,24,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 9. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company that entire award amount has already been deposited, as per order of this Court, dated 20.07.2010. Therefore, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified award amount of Rs.6,89,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn on making proper application. The appellant-Insurance company is permitted to withdraw the balance amount, on making proper application. 10. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.