Judgment :- 1. The appellant/2nd respondent-insurance company has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal praying for reduction of compensation as against the award and decree dated 30.12.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.1281 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.5), Tiruppur. 2. The first respondent, who is the petitioner in the abovesaid O.P, has filed the claim petition for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The contention of the petitioner is that on 30.4.2002 at about 11.30 pm, while he was driving moped bearing Regn.No.TN-39-M8406 towards east on the extreme left side of Tirupur-Dharapuram road near Gem Departmental store, the lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-37-C-4525, belonging to 2nd respondent herein/1st respondent in the O.P, came in the opposite direction towards west in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the moped, in which the petitioner sustained severe fracture injuries in the right thigh, right cheek and severe injuries all over the body and he was admitted in Government Hospital at Tirupur and also admitted at CMC Hospital, Coimbatore and Government Hospital, Madurai, and he was taking treatment till the filing of the petition. It is further stated by the petitioner that at the time of accident, he was 22 years old and he was fish merchant and earning Rs.4,000/- pm. The petitioner has further stated that since the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, the second respondent herein, who is the owner of the lorry and the appellant, who is insurer of the lorry, are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 3. The owner of the abovesaid lorry remained exparte before the Tribunal and only the appellant herein, who is the second respondent in the abovesaid O.P, contested and in its counter, it denied the manner of accident alleged in the petition and contended that the accident was occurred only due to the moped rider's negligent driving of the moped without observing traffic rules, which caused injuries and therefore the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. It is further stated in the counter that the claimant should prove the age, avocation and income, policy particulars, validity of driving licence, nature of injuries etc and further contended that the amount of compensation claimed on various heads are highly excessive. 4. It is further stated in the counter that the claimant should prove the age, avocation and income, policy particulars, validity of driving licence, nature of injuries etc and further contended that the amount of compensation claimed on various heads are highly excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant himself has deposed as PW.1 and examined PW.2-Dr.Sachidanandam and one Das as PW.3 and marked Exs.P1 to P7 and on the side of the appellant-insurance company, has examined two witnesses as RWs.1 and 2 and marked 4 documents as Exs.R1 to R4. On considering the abovesaid oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal has discussed in detail and finally held that the accident was occurred only due to rash and neglgent driving of the driver of the lorry and therefore the owner of the lorry and insurance company are liable to pay compensation. 5. With regard to compensation, the Tribunal has assessed the age of the claimant as 22 on the basis of Ex.P2-accident register and fixed the monthly income as Rs.3000/-and considering the disability certificate of 42%, issued by PW.2-Dr.Sachidanandam, the Tribunal has assessed the loss of income as 3000 x 12 x 17 x 42/100 = Rs.2,57,040.00 and the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5000 for pain and suffering, Rs.3000/-for nutritious food, Rs.2000/- for medical expenses and again the Tribunal awarded Rs.42,000/- for disability and totally awarded Rs.3,09,040/-as compensation. Aggrieved with the abovesaid award, the appellant herein, who is second respondent in the O.P alone has filed this appeal. The claimant has not filed any appeal. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The point for determination in this appeal is:- "Whether the award passed by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant?" 8. With regard to negligence aspect, on the side of the first respondent/petitioner, the injured petitioner himself has deposed as PW.1 and stated that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Further Ex.P1-FIR has been registered as against the driver of the lorry. 9. From the above oral and documentary evidence, it reveal that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry as stated in the claim petition. The first respondent in the OP, who is the owner of the lorry, remained exparte before the Tribunal. 9. From the above oral and documentary evidence, it reveal that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry as stated in the claim petition. The first respondent in the OP, who is the owner of the lorry, remained exparte before the Tribunal. On the side of appellant-insurance company, has not examined any eye-witness to prove the negligence of the petitioner. On the side of the appellant/ second respondent, has examined two witnesses as RW.1 and RW.2 and also marked Ex.R1, letter addressed by investigator to 2nd respondent along with copy of investigation report, Ex.R2 is copy of claim form and Ex.R3-copy of FIR, in which RCS.No.214/2003 has been mentioned as the abovesaid FIR was closed u/s. 468(2) (b) of Cr.P.C since barred by limitation. Ex.R4 is the copy of claim petition filed by driver of moped. 10. A perusal of the abovesaid oral and documentary evidence adduced by the 2nd respondent reveals that criminal case has been registered only as against the first respondent, the driver of the lorry, but since the concerned Investigation Officer has not filed charge-sheet within the period of limitation, the abovesaid FIR was closed under Section 465(c) Cr.P.C and therefore the abovesaid documents adduced on the side of the appellant/2nd respondent, are not helpful to the appellant. 11. As already stated, on the side of the appellant/2nd respondent has not examined any eye-witness or the person who gave complaint to the police and therefore from the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides, I am of considered view that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent's vehicle driver and therefore 2nd respondent and appellant herein who are owner and insurer of the abovesaid lorry are liable to pay compensation to the 1st respondent herein who is petitioner in main O.P as rightly held by the Tribunal. 12. With regard to quantum of compensation, the learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that PW.2-doctor, who has issued disability certificate, has not treated the petitioner and his assessment was not in accordance with Workmen Compensation Act and multiplier method cannot be invoked and the alleged percentage of disability also inflated, but the Tribunal has mechanically applied the multiplier method without properly appreciating the facts and therefore the amount of compensation awarded is highly excessive. 13. 13. Further, at the time of argument, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has calculated the award amount for loss of earning on the basis of multiplier method, but at the same time, the Tribunal again awarded Rs.42,000/- for disability separately and therefore the claimant is not entitled to Rs.42,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 14. The learned counsel for the first respondent herein, who is the petitioner in the abovesaid O.P, has contended that considering the age, avocation, income of the deceased, nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the disability assessed by the doctor, the Tribunal has correctly applied the multiplier method and calculated the compensation amount. The learned counsel for the first respondent herein/petitioner in the abovesaid O.P has conceded that the Tribunal has wrongly awarded a sum of Rs.42,000/- again on the head of disability. 15. Admittedly, the age of the petitioner was fixed by the Tribunal as 22 years on the basis of oral evidence of the petitioner-PW.1 and Ex.P2-accident register. With regard to the income of the petitioner, the petitioner has stated that at the time of accident he was working as fish merchant and earning Rs.4000/-pm. The Tribunal has discussed in detail and fixed the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.3000/-. Considering the age, avocation of the petitioner and other factors, the Tribunal has correctly fixed the abovesaid amount as monthly income of the petitioner. It is also not seriously disputed on the side of appellant/2nd respondent. 16. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier method since the petitioner has not at all sustained any grievous injuries as alleged in the petition and therefore the claimant is not entitled to compensation as per multiplier method. The learned counsel for the first respondent herein, who is the claimant in the abovesaid O.P, has contended that PW.1 has clearly deposed about the injuries and disability due to the abovesaid injuries in his petition and also in oral evidence and to substantiate the evidence of PW.1, PW.2-doctor has issued disability certificate and also deposed in detail and assessed the permanent disability as 42%. The abovesaid oral and documentary evidence reveal that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and 42% disability as assessed by the PW.2 doctor. The abovesaid oral and documentary evidence reveal that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and 42% disability as assessed by the PW.2 doctor. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal by wrongly applying the multiplier method, cannot be accepted. As already stated, the Tribunal has correctly fixed the age, income of the petitioner. With regard to the multiplier, the Tribunal has taken 17 as multiplier. The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision in SARLA VERMA v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121) has held in para 42 as under: "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, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), 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 year, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M13 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." 17. Since in the instant case, as already discussed, the age of the claimant at the time of accident was 22 years and therefore the correct multiplier to be taken as 18, but the Tribunal has wrongly taken the multiplier as 17. From the abovesaid discussion, the loss of income is calculated as Rs.3000 x 18 x 12 x 42/100 = Rs.2,72,160/- but the petitioner is not entitled to a sum of Rs.42,000/-again for disability. Considering the nature of injuries, disability, period of treatment and other factors, the Tribunal has correctly awarded Rs.5000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.3000/- for nutrition, Rs.2000/- for medical expenses, which need not be reduced, since the abovesaid amounts are just and reasonable award. 18. Considering the nature of injuries, disability, period of treatment and other factors, the Tribunal has correctly awarded Rs.5000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.3000/- for nutrition, Rs.2000/- for medical expenses, which need not be reduced, since the abovesaid amounts are just and reasonable award. 18. Therefore, as already discussed, the award amount of the Tribunal i.e. Rs.3,09,040/- is modified and reduced as under: "Loss of income = Rs.2,72,160.00 (Rs.3000 x 18 x 12 x 42/100) Pain and suffering - 5,000.00 Nutrition - 3,000.00 Medical expenses - 2,000.00 Rs.2,82,160.00 ------------------" Rs.2,82,160/- is rounded off to Rs.2,90,000/-(Rupees two lakhs and ninety thousand only) with interest at 9% p.a. 19. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. It is reported that the appellant has deposited part of the award amount of the Tribunal and the first respondent herein/petitioner in the above said O.P has withdrawn 50% of the same. Therefore, the appellant/2nd respondent in the O.P. is directed to deposit the balance award amount with 9% p.a and the first respondent/petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same. No costs.