Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 30.06.2009 made in M.C.O.P No.400 of 2006 by the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- The Injured Mohankumar met with a motor vehicle accident that took place on 27.09.2005 at about 09.00 hrs. The said injured was standing on the extreme left side of the road and at that point of time, a private bus bearing Registration No.TN34 B 2298 came in a rash and negligent manner and also at high speed and hit the injured. Due to the said impact, the injured sustained grievous injuries, fractures and also multiple injuries all over body. He claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. The appellant-Insurance Company resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Who was responsible for the accident? 2. From whom the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? 3. What is the compensation the claimant is entitled to? If so, what is the amount?" 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 private bus and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,82,400/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of Income .. Rs.1,22,400.00 Pain and Suffering .. Rs. 30,000.00 Medical Expenses .. Rs. 25,000.00 Transport and Nutrition .. Rs. 5,000.00 ------------------ Rs.1,82,400.00 ------------------ Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Corporation questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and without basis and justification and that 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 counsel. 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 counsel. On the side of the claimant, PW's 1 and 2 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to P10 were marked. On the side of the appellant-Insurance Company, no one was examined and no document was marked to support their claim. PW1 is the claimant. PW2 is the Dr.K.Mani. Ex.P1 is the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report. Ex.P3 is the wound certificate. Ex.P4 is the Charge sheet. Ex.P5 is the copy of the judgment. Ex.P6 is the Medical Bills. Ex.P7 is the Discharge Summary. Ex.P8 is the copy of the Insurance Policy. Ex.P9 is the X-ray. Ex.P10 is the Disability Certificate. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the private bus and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. At the time of accident, the injured was aged about 23 years. PW1-Mohankumar/claimant in his evidence deposed that he was a Coolie and was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. Further, in his evidence, he stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the private bus and he was also charge sheeted by Velagoundampatti Police Station in Crime No.185/05 U/S.279, 338 IPC. Due to the said injury, he sustained fracture in his left leg and other multiple injuries all over body. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted at Government Hospital, Manickampalayam. Later, he was referred to Arvind Hospital, Namakkal for better treatment and he was taken treatment therein for 30 days as inpatient. Due to the accident, the claimant was unable to do the normal work as before. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted at Government Hospital, Manickampalayam. Later, he was referred to Arvind Hospital, Namakkal for better treatment and he was taken treatment therein for 30 days as inpatient. Due to the accident, the claimant was unable to do the normal work as before. PW2, the Doctor, who examined the claimant, in his evidence has stated that the claimant sustained fracture on his left leg and also other multiple injuries all over body and he also stated that the claimant took treatment as inpatient from 27.09.2005 to 06.10.2005 and he had undergone surgery and iron rods and screws were fixed in the broken bones. Due to the injury, the claimant unable to walk, climb, drive, and to do the normal work as before. Thereafter, PW2-doctor determined the Disability at 30% and issued Ex.P10-Disability Certificate. The Tribunal had given a categorical finding that 30% disability affects the earning capacity of the claimant. Therefore, the Tribunal applied the multiplier method in the present case and taken the age of the claimant at 23 years and fixed the monthly income at Rs.3,000/-. After deducting 1/3 share towards his personal expenses, the remaining 2/3 is taken i.e., Rs.2,000/- as monthly income and adopted the multiplier of 17 and arrived at the loss of income at Rs.1,22,400/-(Rs.2,000 x 12 x 17 x 30%). There is no dispute regarding monthly as well as annual income of the claimant. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that there is no materials available on record to show that the injured is permanently disabled in the present case and also the correct multiplier that should be adopted in this case is 14' instead of 17'. 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? (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. 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." Taking note of the principles enunciated in the above Judgements, I am of the view that the Tribunal is correct in adopting multiplier method in the present case. There is no serious dispute regarding the same. But, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is also modified. The correct multiplier to be adopted is 14. There is no serious dispute regarding the same. But, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is also modified. The correct multiplier to be adopted is 14. Hence, if multiplier 14' is adopted, the loss of income works out to Rs.1,00,800/-(Rs.2,000x12x14x30%) as against Rs.1,22,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-towards pain and sufferings. After taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained, I feel that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head is on the higher side and it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- as against Rs.30,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- (as per Ex.P6) towards medical expenses, which is an actual expenditure incurred by the claimant and based on valid materials. Hence, the amount awarded under the head of medical expenses is confirmed. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the heads of Transport expenses and Nutrition, which is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The accident was occurred on 27.09.2005. Keeping in view the prevailing rate of interest at the time of the accident and the date of award, I feel that 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 .. Rs.1,00,800.00 Pain and Suffering .. Rs. 25,000.00 Medical Expenses .. Rs. 25,000.00 Transport and Nutrition .. Rs. 5,000.00 ------------------ Rs.1,55,800.00 ------------------ Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.1,55,800/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition as against the compensation of Rs.1,82,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. 8. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance company that the entire amount has already been deposited as per order of this Court dated 05.01.2010. In such circumstances, the claimant is permitted to to withdraw the modified compensation of Rs.1,55,800/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn, on making proper application. Likewise, the appellant-Insurance company is permitted to withdraw the balance amount, on making proper application. 9. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Likewise, the appellant-Insurance company is permitted to withdraw the balance amount, on making proper application. 9. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.