Judgment :- 1. The appellant/2nd respondent-insurance company has filed both C.M.A.No.3602 of 2006 and CMA.No.3603 of 2006 challenging the quantum of compensation passed in common award and decree dated 31.1.2006 made in MCOP.No.1045 of 2003 and MCOP.No.1053 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.4), Coimbatore at Tiruppur. 2. The 1st Respondent in both appeals/Petitioners in both MCOP.Nos.1045 and 1053 of 2003 have filed claim petitions for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs each for the injuries sustained by them in the motor accident. The petitioners in the claim petitions have stated that on 24.2.2003 at about 6 hours, when they were standing with bike bearing Regn.No.TN 25 B 3615 from east to west in Avinashi to Kovai Main Road in front of L.O.A Petrol bunk in Nalligoundenpalayam keeping left side of the road, a Van bearing Regn.No.TN 39 D 6477, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules, dashed against the petitioners and the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the above said van and the petitioner in MCOP.No.1045/2003 sustained fracture at left hand elbow, left hand fingers, left knee, left toe and injuries all over the body and taken treatment at United hospital, Coimbatore and due to the accident, he was unable to do any work and at the time of accident, he was 18 years old and was working as machine helper in S.K.R.S Borewells, Nambiyur and earning Rs.4000/- p.m and hence claimed compensation of Rs.5 lakhs from the respondents who are owner and insurer of the van. 3. In the petition in MCOP.No.1053/2003, the petitioner has stated that in the above said accident, he sustained fracture at left leg, left hand elbow, left shoulder, nasal bone and injuries all over the body and was admitted in United hospital, Coimbatore and due to injuries, he was unable to work and at the time of accident, he was 33 years old and was working as Manager in S.K.R.S Borewells, Nambiyur and earning Rs.5000/- p.m and therefore he claimed compensation of Rs.5 lakhs from the respondents, who are owner and insurer of the van. 4. 4. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent, who is the owner of the van, remained exparte and on the side of the appellant/2nd respondent, has filed counter stating that the insurance company has not received any claim from the owner of the van and also denied the allegations made in the petition that the accident was occurred as alleged in the petition and further stated that the accident had taken place almost in the middle of the road and hence the petitioners have contributed to the alleged accident and the driver of the van has not driven the van as alleged in the petition and he followed the traffic rules and therefore he was not responsible for the accident and further the age, income, nature of injuries, occupation, medical expenses are to be proved by petitioners and the claim on various heads are very high and therefore prayed for dismissal of both petitions. 5. The Tribunal has ordered joint trial in both MCOPs and on the side of the claimants/petitioners in both O.Ps examined 4 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15 and on the side of the appellant-insurance company has not examined any witness and not marked any document. 6. The Tribunal has considered the abovesaid oral and documentary evidence adduced on petitioner's side and finally held that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van and therefore the owner and insurer of the van are liable to pay compensation and further awarded compensation of Rs.2,11,825/-and Rs.5,98,778/- to the petitioners respectively in both O.P.Nos.1045 and 1053 of 2003. As against the above said award and decree, the petitioners have not filed any appeal. The appellant/2nd respondent in O.Ps alone has filed these two appeals challenging the quantum of compensation. 7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records. 8. The point for consideration in these appeals is, "Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in both appeals are excessive as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant?" 9. The petitioners in both O.Ps have deposed before the Tribunal as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Ex.P1-copy of FIR, Ex.P2-copy of M.V.Report to prove the negligence of the first respondent-driver of the van. The petitioners in both O.Ps have deposed before the Tribunal as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Ex.P1-copy of FIR, Ex.P2-copy of M.V.Report to prove the negligence of the first respondent-driver of the van. On the side of the owner and insurer of the van, no witness was examined and no document was marked. A perusal of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on the petitioners side reveal that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van, as correctly held by the Tribunal. 10. With regard to quantum of compensation in MCOP.No.1045 of 2003, the age of the petitioner was fixed as 18 years and the income of the petitioner was fixed as Rs.2100/-by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal has considered the oral evidence of PW.1 and PW3-Dr.Senthilkumar and the above said doctor has given disability certificate as 45.02% sustained by him due to the injuries. But the Tribunal has fixed the disability as 40% and taken the multiplier as 16 and awarded Rs.1,61,280/-and apart from that awarded Rs.250/-, Rs.1000/-, Rs.7000/- and Rs.42,295/- for transportation, extra-nourishment, mental agony and pain and suffering and medical expenses, totally Rs. 2,12,825/-. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the petitioner in MCOP.No.1045 of 2003 has sustained only 40% disability, but the Tribunal has erroneously applied multiplier method and further contended that the award of Rs.42,295/- for medical expenses has been made without any supporting documents and therefore the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioner in MCOP.No.1045 of 2003 sustained 45.02% disability and further stated that due to the injuries, he is not able to work as before and has not earned anything and the above said fact was stated in the petition and the petitioner also deposed at the time of evidence and therefore the Tribunal has correctly adopted the multiplier method and no need to interfere with the above said finding. 12. 12. With regard to the age of the petitioner in MCOP.No.1045 of 2003, the Tribunal has considered the evidence of PW.1 and on the basis of Ex.P1-copy of FIR and Ex.P2-wound certificate, correctly fixed the age of the petitioner as 16 and further the Tribunal has fixed the disability as 40% considering the nature of injuries and oral evidence of doctor and disability certificate and further the Tribunal has correctly fixed the monthly income (i.e) Rs.2100/- from the oral testimony of PW.1. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimant, he is unable to work as before due to accident and therefore the Tribunal has correctly fixed the age, income, multiplier and disability and awarded Rs.2100 x 12 x 16 x 40% = Rs.1,61,280/-for loss of income and hence no need to interfere with the above said finding. With regard to award amount on other heads, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.250/- for transportation, Rs.1000/- for extra-nourishment, Rs.7000/- for pain and suffering and considering Ex.P5 medical bills Rs.42,295/- for medical expenses. The above said amounts are just and reasonable and therefore no need to interfere with the said finding and hence total amount of compensation passed in MCOP.No.1045/2003 is to be confirmed. 13. In MCOP.No.1053/2003, the Tribunal has fixed the income of the petitioner as Rs.2400/- pm and with regard to multiplier, considering the age mentioned in Ex.P6-wound certificate, adopted the multiplier as 17. Further, PW.3-Dr.Senthilkumar who has issued disability certificate has deposed and marked Ex.P12-wound certificate and Ex.P13-X ray, in which it is stated that the petitioner has sustained 71.67% disability, but the Tribunal has assessed the disability as 66% and passed award for loss of income as Rs.2100 x 12 x 17 x 66% = Rs.2,82,744/-. Petitioner has proved the age and income by oral and documentary evidence and no dispute in the above facts. As rightly contended by learned counsel for claimant in this O.P, he is unable to work as before due to the accident and the above said fact was proved by oral and documentary evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 doctor and therefore the Tribunal correctly assessed the award for loss of income. Learned Tribunal has discussed the Ex.P13 (series) medical bills and with consent of the petitioner, after deducting Rs.3050/-, correctly fixed as Rs.3,03,033/- for medical expenses and hence no need to interfere in this finding also. Learned Tribunal has discussed the Ex.P13 (series) medical bills and with consent of the petitioner, after deducting Rs.3050/-, correctly fixed as Rs.3,03,033/- for medical expenses and hence no need to interfere in this finding also. Further the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1000/- for transportation, Rs.2000/- for extra-nourishment, Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering, which are not considered as excessive and therefore total compensation of Rs.5,98,778/-passed by learned Tribunal in MCOP.No.1053/2003 is also just and reasonable and no need to interfere in the above said finding. 14. In the result, both the appeals (i.e) CMA.Nos.3602 and 3603 of 2006 are dismissed and the award passed by the Tribunal in both the O.P.Nos.1045 and 1053 of 2003 are confirmed. No costs.