Judgment 1. This appeal is preferred as against the award and decree dated 3.5.2002 in MCOP No.412 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Namakkal. The first respondent in the above said OP is the appellant herein. 2. The first respondent herein, who is the petitioner in the above said OP, has filed the claim petition by claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident occurred on 15.3.2001. 3. Briefly, the case of the first respondent/claimant is that on 15.3.2001 at about 5.30 P.M., while the petitioner was riding his TVS 50 along with his wife near Kalangani Bus Stop on the Namakkal to Salem Main Road, the driver of the ambassador car bearing Registration No.TDU 2617, namely the second respondent in the said OP, drove the same without observing the road traffic rules, in a rash and negligent manner and without making any horn, dashed against the petitioner's vehicle TVS 50 and the petitioner sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the body including several fractures on his right and left hip and left leg and he was taking treatment in the Government Hospital, Namakkal and then at Gokulam Hospital, Salem and at Sri Nidhi Hospital, Namakkal and the petitioner was under treatment till the filing of the petition as inpatient and the petitioner has sustained permanent disablement. It is further stated that at the time of accident, the age of the petitioner was 41 years and he was Driller and earned Rs.5,000/- per month and the accident has occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ambassador car and he claimed a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and the first respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, and the second respondent, who is the driver of the vehicle, are liable to pay the same. 4. The second respondent, who is the driver of the vehicle, remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 4. The second respondent, who is the driver of the vehicle, remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. Only the appellant/first respondent in the OP, who is the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, has filed counter, in which he denied the allegations in the petition and contended that on 15.3.2001 at about 5.30 P.M., when the second respondent drove the ambassador car TDU 2617 following the traffic rules and regulations, on the west of the road towards North near Kalangani Bus Stop, the petitioner who was riding his TVS 50 motorcycle on the opposite side and carrying his wife as pillion driver, suddenly crossed the road behind the standing bus without minding about the traffic rules and regulations and on seeing this, the driver used horn and applied brake and drove his car towards left; but, the petitioner came negligently and carelessly and twisted his TVS 50 and fell down on the ground and hence the accident has not occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the car. It is further contended that the petitioner should prove the alleged injuries, medical expenses, employment, monthly income, disability, loss of income and valid driving licence of the petitioner and the petitioner must implead the owner of TVS 50 and the amount of compensation claimed, is excessive. 5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioner, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined Dr.Kathiravan as P.W.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P8 and on the side of the respondents, the driver of the car, who is the second respondent in the above said OP, was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked. 6. Considering the above said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has held that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the second respondent, who is the driver of the first respondent's vehicle and therefore, the first respondent is liable to pay compensation. 6. Considering the above said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has held that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the second respondent, who is the driver of the first respondent's vehicle and therefore, the first respondent is liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal has further fixed the age of the injured claimant as 42 years and since the Doctor has assessed the disability of the claimant as 60% and the income of the deceased was fixed as Rs.2,000/- per month, the Tribunal has applied multiplier 15 and considering 60% disability, the loss of income was calculated as Rs.2000x12x15 x 60/100 = Rs.2,16,000/-and further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.24,707/- for medical expenses as per Ex.P5 medical bills and Rs.15,000/- for pain and sufferings and Rs.5,000/-for transportation and the award was passed for a total sum of Rs.2,60,707/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the first respondent in the OP has filed this appeal. 7. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and also the learned Counsel for the first respondent and perused the records. 8. With regard to the negligence on the side of the first respondent/claimant, the injured petitioner himself has deposed as P.W.1 and also marked Ex.P1 copy of FIR, and Ex.P2 wound certificate, and Ex.P3 copy of M.V. Report, and Ex.P4 copy of charge sheet, and a careful perusal of the above said oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the petitioner reveal that the accident has occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent herein who is the driver of the car. The concerned police has also investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the second respondent. The second respondent, who is the driver of the first respondent's vehicle, remained ex-parte in the above said OP before the Tribunal; but, at the time of evidence, the second respondent has appeared before the Court and deposed as if the accident has not occurred as stated in the petition, but occurred as stated in the counter. The second respondent, who is the driver of the first respondent's vehicle, remained ex-parte in the above said OP before the Tribunal; but, at the time of evidence, the second respondent has appeared before the Court and deposed as if the accident has not occurred as stated in the petition, but occurred as stated in the counter. Learned Counsel for the first respondent/claimant has rightly contended that the second respondent, who is the driver of the car, has falsely deposed since criminal case has been pending against him and P.W.1 has clearly deposed about the negligent driving of the second respondent and also the concerned police has investigated the case and found that the accident has occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent driver and filed charge sheet against him. Considering the above said oral and documentary evidence on either side, I am of the view that the accident has occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent, who is the driver of the first respondent's vehicle, as correctly held by the Tribunal. 9. With regard to the compensation, the Tribunal has fixed the age of the first respondent herein/claimant as 42 years on the basis of Ex.P2 wound certificate. It is not seriously objected to by the learned Counsel for the appellant/first respondent and therefore, the age of the claimant is correctly fixed as 42 years by the Tribunal. 10. With regard to the income of the claimant, in the petition, it is stated that the petitioner has earned Rs.5,000/-per month as a Driller. Except the oral evidence of P.W.1, there is no other document to prove the above said income of the claimant. The Tribunal considered the oral evidence of P.W.1 and the income of the claimant is fixed as Rs.2,000/- per month. Admittedly, the petitioner was 42 years at the time of accident and considering the period of accident and other factors, I am of the view that the above said amount is reasonable and no interference is needed in the above said finding. 11. As already discussed, the petitioner has sustained several grievous injuries and due to the injuries, the disability of the claimant was assessed by the Doctor P.W.2 as 60% and he issued Ex.P7 disability certificate and also produced Ex.P8 series x-rays. 11. As already discussed, the petitioner has sustained several grievous injuries and due to the injuries, the disability of the claimant was assessed by the Doctor P.W.2 as 60% and he issued Ex.P7 disability certificate and also produced Ex.P8 series x-rays. From the above said oral and documentary evidence, it is proved that the petitioner/claimant sustained 60% disability as rightly assessed by the Tribunal. The petitioner was working as Driller and sustained 60% disability and therefore, the Tribunal has correctly applied multiplier method. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the multiplier as 15 instead of 14. With regard to multiplier, the Hon'ble Apex Court in SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in (2009) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 121, in paragraph No.12, has laid down principles as follows: "42.) We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas ( (1994) 2 SCC 176 ), Trilok Chandra ( (1996) 4 SCC 362 ) and Charlie ( (2005) 10 SCC 720 ), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years." 12. As per the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above said decision, considering the age of the petitioner as 42, the correct multiplier is only 14 and not 15 and therefore, the correct multiplier to be applied in this case is only 14 and not 15, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Applying the same, the loss of income is arrived as Rs.2000x12x14 x 60/100 = Rs.2,01,600/-. Considering the medical bills Ex.P5, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.24,707/-for medical expenses and Rs.15,000/- for pain and sufferings and Rs.5,000/-for transportation. Applying the same, the loss of income is arrived as Rs.2000x12x14 x 60/100 = Rs.2,01,600/-. Considering the medical bills Ex.P5, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.24,707/-for medical expenses and Rs.15,000/- for pain and sufferings and Rs.5,000/-for transportation. Considering the period of accident, nature of injuries, disability, age, avocation and income of the petitioner, the amounts awarded on the above said heads, are not excessive as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the first respondent/claimant and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the above said finding. 13. From the above said discussions, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified and reduced as under: Loss of income Rs. Rs.2000x12x14 x 60/1002,01,600 Medical expenses 24,707 Pain and sufferings 15,000 Transportation 5,000 Total:2,46,307 Rounded off to : 2,47,000 14. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed and the award amount is reduced from Rs.2,60,707/- to Rs.2,47,000/-with proportionate interest at 9% per annum and costs. It is informed that the entire amount was already deposited by the appellant/first respondent and the first respondent herein/petitioner has withdrawn 50% of the award amount. Therefore, the first respondent/petitioner is permitted to withdraw the balance award amount and the appellant/first respondent is permitted to withdraw the remaining excess amount deposited. No costs.