JUDGMENT R.BANUMATHI, J - 1. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.14,84,559/- awarded for the injuries sustained by the 1st Respondent-Claimant in road traffic accident on 14.03.1997, Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts are that 1st Respondent-Claimant was on duty as Conductor in 3rd Respondent-Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration No.TN-29-N 0713, which was proceeding from Bargur to Madras. On 14.3.1997, when the bus was nearing Ankinayackanampatti village in Bargur to Vaniyambadi National Highways, the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.ATC 2977 belonging to the 2nd Respondent and insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus. Due to the hit, the Claimant and the other passengers sustained injuries. In the accident, Claimant sustained fracture of spinal cord and also head injuries. Immediately, after the accident, the Claimant was taken to Government Hospital, Krishnagiri, where Claimant was given first aid and then admitted in Government Headquarters Hospital, Dharmapuri and discharged on 16.3.1997. Thereafter, Claimant got admitted in private hospitals and taken treatment as in-patient. After discharge from Dr.Sundarajan's Neuro Hospital, Salem, Claimant had also taken treatment in the same hospital for 1½ years as outpatient. Claimant rejoined duty on 23.3.1998 and worked for about 4 years in alternative work assigned to him. He was referred to Mohan Kumara Mangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem for medical examination for assessment of certificate of his suitability to do the duty of Conductor by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Salem Division. By Proceedings dated 03.12.2002, the Medical Board certified that Claimant is unfit for Conductor post and that Claimant was discharged from service on medical grounds on 05.12.2002. Regarding the accident, a Criminal case was registered against the lorry driver in Crime No.55 of 1997 under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. on the file of Bargur Police Station. Stating that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, Claimant filed the Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. 3. Resisting the Claim Petition, Appellant-Insurance Company filed the counter contending that since the accident occurred during the course of employment, the Claimant is entitled to get compensation only from his employer under Workmen's Compensation Act. Appellant-Insurance Company also denied the medical expenses incurred and the percentage of disability suffered by the Claimant and that the compensation claimed by the Claimant is excessive. 4. Appellant-Insurance Company also denied the medical expenses incurred and the percentage of disability suffered by the Claimant and that the compensation claimed by the Claimant is excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, onbehalf of the Claimant, the Claimant examined himself as P.W.1, the then Section Officer (Dakshinamoorthy) in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Dharmapuri Zone was examined as P.W.2, Dr.Gandhi was examined as P.W.3 and Exs.P1 to P24 were marked. On behalf of the Appellant Insurance Company, the driver of the bus viz., Jaikumar was examined as R.W.1 and no documentary evidence was adduced. 5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal held that the accident was due to negligent driving of the lorry driver. Tribunal held that because of the injuries sustained, the Claimant suffered disability and rendered medically unfit for carrying on his work as Conductor. Pointing out that Claimant would have continued in his service for another nine years, six months and 26 days, taking his last drawn salary at Rs.7567/- and adopting multiplier "11", Tribunal calculated the future loss of income at Rs.11,44,188/-. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. VS. CHARLIE AND ANOTHER, ( AIR 2005 SC 2157 = (2005) 10 SCC 720 ), the Supreme Court deducted one-third for personal expenses and calculated the future loss of income at Rs.7,62,792/-. Adding compensation under other heads, Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.14,84,559/-under the following heads: Being aggrieved by the award, Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 6. Negligence:- Learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company contended that Tribunal erred in relying on the interested testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 to absolve the bus driver from the tort committed by him. The driver of the bus viz., Jaikumar was examined as R.W.1. In his evidence, RW1 stated that on the date of accident he was driving the bus carefully on the extreme left side of the road and that the driver of the lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus and that the lorry driver alone is responsible for the accident. By perusal of Ex.P1-F.I.R. it is seen that Criminal Case was registered against the lorry driver. The evidence of R.W.1 and registration of Ex.P1-FIR are unassailable. To rebut the evidence of R.W.1, Appellant-Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence. The lorry driver was not examined. By perusal of Ex.P1-F.I.R. it is seen that Criminal Case was registered against the lorry driver. The evidence of R.W.1 and registration of Ex.P1-FIR are unassailable. To rebut the evidence of R.W.1, Appellant-Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence. The lorry driver was not examined. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver is based on evidence and we do not find any reason warranting interference with the said finding. 7. Quantum of compensation:– Learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company contended that Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.86,000/- for loss of earnings; Rs.2,81,000/- for loss of batta and bonus and Rs.7,62,792/- for loss of future income and the same are unsustainable. It was further submitted that Tribunal ought not to have capitalised the loss for nine years and six months despite the fact that no documentary evidence was produced substantiating that the Claimant was unfit for alternative employment also. Learned counsel would further submit that Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of enjoyment and erred in granting huge sum of Rs.14,84,559/- as compensation without any basis and quantum of compensation awarded is reasonable. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for Claimant contended that consequent to the injuries sustained in the accident, Claimant was rendered unfit to continue his employment as Conductor and based on the report of Medical Board, he was discharged from employment on medical grounds and that Tribunal has rightly capitalised the loss for nine years and six months based on the Claimant's last drawn salary. 9. At the time of accident, Claimant was travelling as Conductor in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN-29 N 0713. In the accident, the lorry bearing registration No.ATC 2977 hit against the bus and the Claimant sustained fracture of spinal cord i.e. nape of back side neck, fracture of bone head. After the accident, Claimant was taken to Government Hospital, Krishnagiri, where first aid was given and then he was taken to Government Headquarters Hospital, Dharmapuri, where he was admitted as inpatient and taken treatment till 16.3.1997. Thereafter, Claimant got admitted in Kamalam Hospital, Dharmapuri and then got admitted in Dr.Prabakaran's Hospital at Dharmapuri on 17.3.1997 and taken treatment as inpatient and discharged on 11.6.1997 Thereafter, Claimant was admitted in Dr.Sundarajan's Hospital at Salem and taken treatment for 70 days. Thereafter, Claimant got admitted in Kamalam Hospital, Dharmapuri and then got admitted in Dr.Prabakaran's Hospital at Dharmapuri on 17.3.1997 and taken treatment as inpatient and discharged on 11.6.1997 Thereafter, Claimant was admitted in Dr.Sundarajan's Hospital at Salem and taken treatment for 70 days. During treatment, Claimant underwent surgery over his spinal back bone and two hip bones were removed and fixed over his back bone. 10. In his evidence, Claimant (P.W.1) stated that he spent about Rs.75,000/- for medical expenses. In his evidence, P.W.1 stated that spinal cord bones L1 to L6 are affected and because of surgery done, he is not in a position to properly sit and walk and that he is permanently disabled. After taking treatment, Claimant was able to rejoin duty only on 23.3.1998. 11. P.W.3-Dr.Gandhi stated that he examined the claimant and stated that claimant's neck bones C2, C3, C4, C5 are affected and that during the course of treatment, surgery was done by removing two hip bones and fixing in the spinal cord. In his evidence, P.W.3 stated that because of the injuries sustained by the Claimant and claimant has difficulties in walking and sitting for long time and P.W.3 assessed the claimant's disability at 65%. Ex.P.23 is the disability certificate issued by P.W.3. 12. Loss of earnings:-Claimant was employed as Conductor in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and at the time of accident, he was getting salary of Rs.6,810/-. He rejoined the duty on 23.3.1998 and by the Proceedings No.310/PA3/D5/0553/ TNSTC/2002 dated 03.12.2002, Claimant was discharged from service on 05.12.2002. The then Section Officer of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Dharmapuri Zonal Office viz., Dakshinamoorthy was examined as P.W.2. In his evidence, P.W.2 stated that at the time when the Claimant was discharged from service on medical grounds, his last drawn salary was Rs.7,567.80. P.W.2 further stated that Claimant would be getting batta of Rs.50/- and that Claimant would be attending duty for about 13 days. P.W.2 also stated that Claimant would be getting bonus of Rs.2500/- to Rs.6000/- every year. Tribunal has awarded Rs.86,000/- for "loss of earning". Claimant had taken treatment from 14.3.1997 to 22.3.1998. During which period, Claimant got only 15 days medical leave and the remaining period i.e., about 11 ½ months was treated as loss of pay. Considering the duration of treatment, Rs.86,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for "loss of earnings" is maintained. 13. Tribunal has awarded Rs.86,000/- for "loss of earning". Claimant had taken treatment from 14.3.1997 to 22.3.1998. During which period, Claimant got only 15 days medical leave and the remaining period i.e., about 11 ½ months was treated as loss of pay. Considering the duration of treatment, Rs.86,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for "loss of earnings" is maintained. 13. Loss of Batta:-Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,81,000/- for "loss of batta and loss of bonus". In his evidence, P.W.2 stated that while claimant was on duty, Claimant would get Rs.50/- as collection batta and he used to do duty for 13 days in a month. But for the accident, the claimant would have continued to work as conductor and he would have earned batta at the rate of Rs.650/- per month. Date of birth of Claimant is 27.8.1953 and the date of accident is on 14.03.1997 and the date of retirement is on 31.8.2011. The claimant had 14 ½ years of service to work as a conductor. Taking into consideration the batta of Rs.50/- per day, for 13 days per month for 14½ years, the "loss of batta" is calculated at Rs.650/- per month (Rs.50 x 13 days) i.e., Rs.7,800/- per annum. Therefore, claimant is entitled to Rs.1,13,100/- (Rs.7800 x 14 ½) for loss of collection batta. 14. Loss of Bonus:- In his evidence, P.W.2 further stated that Claimant would have got minimum amount of Rs.2500/- and maximum of Rs.6000/- as bonus. Considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the nature of claimant's avocation, we deem it appropriate to take Rs.4000/- as bonus per year. Claimant rejoined duty on 23.3.1998 and discharged from service on medical grounds on 05.12.2002. During the period from 23.3.1998 to 5.12.2002, when the claimant was in alternative employment/lighter work, claimant continued to be employee of Transport Corporation and the claimant would have been paid bonus during the said 4 1/2 years. Only after his discharge from service on medical grounds, on 5.12.2002 claimant was deprived of bonus. For the remaining period of eight years and eight months, rounded to nine years of service, loss of bonus is calculated at Rs.36,000/- (Rs.4,000 x 9). Thus, for loss of collection of batta and loss of bonus, an amount of Rs.1,49,100/- (Rs.1,13,100/- plus Rs.36,000/-) is awarded. Compensation of Rs.2,81,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head "loss of batta and bonus" reduced to Rs.1,49,100/-. 15. Thus, for loss of collection of batta and loss of bonus, an amount of Rs.1,49,100/- (Rs.1,13,100/- plus Rs.36,000/-) is awarded. Compensation of Rs.2,81,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head "loss of batta and bonus" reduced to Rs.1,49,100/-. 15. Loss of future earning:– Based on Ex.P.22 - salary certificate and Ex.P21 - salary receipts (series), Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the Claimant at Rs.7,567/-. Observing that if the Claimant continued his job, he would have retired on 31.8.2011 and that he would have worked for another nine years, six months and 26 days. Taking the monthly income at Rs.7567/- and adopting multiplier "11", Tribunal calculated the loss of future earning at Rs.11,44,188/-. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. VS. CHARLIE AND ANOTHER, ( AIR 2005 SC 2157 = (2005) 10 SCC 720 ), Tribunal deducted one-third for personal expenses and calculated the loss of future earnings at Rs.7,62,792/-. 16. Learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company contended that Claimant suffered 65% of disability and in fact, he continued his employment for five years and while so, Tribunal erred in calculating the loss of income taking into account the entire last drawn salary and adopted multiplier "11". It was further submitted that Tribunal ought to have calculated the compensation for "permanent disability/loss of earning power" by taking the permanent disability at 65%. 17. Per contra, learned counsel for Claimant contended that due to the injuries sustained by the Claimant in the accident, the Claimant is permanently disabled and unable to carry on his normal avocation as Conductor and that he was discharged from service on medical grounds and therefore, Tribunal has rightly taken the last drawn salary and adopted multiplier method to award "future loss of earning" at Rs.7,62,792/-and the same is reasonable. 18. In his evidence, claimant stated that after the accident, spinal cord bones - C1 to C6 are affected and therefore he is not in a position to sit, walk for a long distance and he is not in a position to lift heavy weights. P.W.3 – Dr.Gandhi, who examined the claimant, also stated that claimant sustained fracture in the spinal cord i.e., nape of back side of neck – C2, C3, C4 and C5. P.W.3 also stated that during the cross examination of the claimant he noted that hip bones were removed and fixed over the back bone. P.W.3 – Dr.Gandhi, who examined the claimant, also stated that claimant sustained fracture in the spinal cord i.e., nape of back side of neck – C2, C3, C4 and C5. P.W.3 also stated that during the cross examination of the claimant he noted that hip bones were removed and fixed over the back bone. P.W.3 stated that both legs of the claimant are weakened and that claimant has difficulty in sitting for a long time and walking long distance. P.W.3 assessed the permanent disability of claimant at 65%. 19. As pointed out earlier, after prolonged treatment, claimant re-joined duty on 23.3.1998. After he re-joined duty, because of claimant's disability, he was assigned lighter work. Claimant was referred to Medical College Hospital, Salem for medical examination and also issuance of certificate for his suitability to do the duty of conductor in State Transport Corporation. Medical Board examined the claimant and certified that he is unfit to continue in service as bus conductor and issued the recommendation – Ex.P.16 dated 3.10.2002. According to the claimant, he requested the Corporation to allot alternative job; but his request was negatived and the claimant was medically discharged from service by the Transport Corporation on 5.12.2002. 20. When the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, assessment of compensation under the head of "Loss of future earnings" would depend upon the effect of 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. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money to arrive at future loss of earnings. 21. In the case of RAJ KUMAR VS. AJAY KUMAR AND ANOTHER, ( (2011) 1 SCC 343 = 2010) (2) TN MAC 581 (SC) = 2011 ACJ 1 ), considering the steps in deciding the permanent disability and also the quantum of loss of future earning capacity, the Supreme Court held as under: "12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement; (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity. 13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. The same principle was reiterated in the case of GOVIND YADAV VS. NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ( (2011) 10 SCC 683 = 2012 ACJ 28) and LAXMAN VS. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER, (2011) 10 SCC 756 = 2012 ACJ 191 ). 22. The same principle was reiterated in the case of GOVIND YADAV VS. NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ( (2011) 10 SCC 683 = 2012 ACJ 28) and LAXMAN VS. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER, (2011) 10 SCC 756 = 2012 ACJ 191 ). 22. As held by a Division Bench of this Court in UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITD VS. VELUCHAMY AND ANOTHER, ( 2005(1) CTC 38 ) and RAJ KUMAR VS. AJAY KUMAR AND ANOTHER, ( (2011) 1 SCC 343 = 2010) (2) TN MAC 581 (SC) = 2011 ACJ 1 ), in appropriate cases, where the disability resulted in functional disability, the Court can adopt multiplier method. 23. As pointed out earlier, claimant was discharged on medical grounds. After re-joining duty, claimant worked for about 4 ½ years and thereafter discharged on medical grounds on 5.12.2002. In his evidence, claimant stated that his request for alternative employment was negatived and he was medically discharged from service. Because of the permanent disability, the claimant has been deprived of carrying on his normal avocation as a conductor and therefore in the instant case, it is appropriate to adopt multiplier method. 24. At the time of accident, claimant was getting salary of Rs.6,810/-. In his evidence, P.W.2 stated that at the time when the claimant was medically discharged on 5.12.2002, he was getting salary of Rs.7,567.80 and the same is rounded to Rs.7,570/-. The date of birth of the claimant is 27.8.1953. He would have continuedin service till 58 years i.e., till 26.8.2011. On the date when he was medially discharged on 5.12.2002, claimant was aged 49 years and 4 months. Thus, though the Tribunal recorded a finding that the claimant has balance service of 9 years 8 months and 26 days, if we go by the dates, the claimant had balance service of 8 years and 8 months only. Accordingly, the loss of future earnings for 8 years is calculated at Rs.726720 (Rs.7570 x 12 x 8). For the remaining eight months, future loss of earnings is calculated at Rs.60560 (Rs.7570x8). Thus, loss of future earnings is calculated at Rs.7,87,280/-. (Rs.7,26,720 plus Rs.60560/-). 25. Personal injury cases – Deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses – whether necessary:- Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company submitted that while adopting multiplier method for determining the quantum of compensation for future loss of earnings, Court has to deduct 1/3rd for personal expenses. Thus, loss of future earnings is calculated at Rs.7,87,280/-. (Rs.7,26,720 plus Rs.60560/-). 25. Personal injury cases – Deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses – whether necessary:- Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company submitted that while adopting multiplier method for determining the quantum of compensation for future loss of earnings, Court has to deduct 1/3rd for personal expenses. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon decision of Supreme Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. VS. CHARLIE AND ANOTHER, ( AIR 2005 SC 2157 = (2005) 10 SCC 720 ). 26. The learned counsel for appellant further contended that the claimant sustained only 65% disability and therefore 100% cannot be made and loss of earnings cannot be calculated by taking the entire salary and in any event suitable 1/3rd deduction has to be made for personal expenses. 27. Per contra, learned counsel for claimant submitted that the claimant was medically discharged and therefore while adopting the multiplier method, for calculating future loss of earnings the Court need not deduct 1/3rd or any other percentage towards personal expenses. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon RAJ KUMAR VS. AJAY KUMAR AND ANOTHER, ( (2011) 1 SCC 343 = 2011 ACJ 1 ) wherein it was held as under: 20. In the case of an injured-claimant with a disability, what is calculated is the future loss of earnings of the claimant, payable to claimant, (as contrasted from loss of dependency calculated in a fatal accident, where the dependent family members of the deceased are the claimants). Therefore, there is no need to deduct one-third or any other percentage from out of the income, towards personal and living expenses." 28. In NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. VS. CHARLIE AND ANOTHER, ( AIR 2005 SC 2157 = (2005) 10 SCC 720 ), the Honourable Supreme Court explained the factors to be considered for calculating future loss of earnings. Observing that deduction to be made for personal expenses cannot be governed by any rigid formula and that it depends on facts of each case, in paragraph Nos.5 and 6, the Supreme Court held as under: "5. In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the injured has been totally crippled and has been almost rendered immobile by 100% disability. Even at the time of discharge he was not in conscious condition. In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the injured has been totally crippled and has been almost rendered immobile by 100% disability. Even at the time of discharge he was not in conscious condition. Taking into account this factor the quantum as awarded cannot be said to be on the higher side. 6. What would be the percentage of deduction for personal expenditure cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula by universal application. It would depend upon the circumstances of each case. In the instant case the claimant was nearly 37 years of age and was married. Therefore, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant, 1/3rd deduction has to be made for personal expenditure. 29. In personal injury cases, deduction of 1/3rd amount from the total income would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In appropriate cases, where the claimant had sustained multiple injuries and suffered substantial disability and when he is not in a position to carry on his normal routine, deduction of 1/3rd amount from the loss of future earnings may not be appropriate. But he can carry on any other suitable work. 30. In the accident case, claimant sustained 65% disability. Though he was discharged on medical grounds, it is not as if the claimant is totally incapacitated. Admittedly, claimant continued to work in a lighter post between 1998-2002. As per the evidence of P.W.3, Dr. Gandhi, the claimant cannot walk for long distance and he cannot lift heavy weights. Because of injuries, the claimant may not be in a position to carry on avocation involving manual work. 31. Considering the percentage of disability, 1/3rd deduction has to be made for personal expenses. Deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses (Rs.2,62,426 (7,87,280 x 1/3), the compensation for future loss of earnings is calculated at Rs.5,24,854/-. 32. Loss of amenities and loss of enjoyment:-The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of enjoyment and another sum of Rs.25,000/- for loss of amenities. The compensation cannot be awarded under two separate heads, one for loss of enjoyment and another for loss of amenities. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded under loss of enjoyment is deleted and the loss of compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded for loss of amenities is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. 33. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,317/-for medical expenses and Rs.50,000/- for future medical expenses. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded under loss of enjoyment is deleted and the loss of compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded for loss of amenities is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. 33. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,317/-for medical expenses and Rs.50,000/- for future medical expenses. As elaborated earlier, claimant had taken treatment in various Hospitals for a prolonged period of about one year. The claimant has stated that even after discharge he continued to take treatment as out-patient. Therefore, considering the duration of treatment, the compensation of Rs.40,317/-awarded for medical expenses and Rs.50,000/-awarded for future medical expenses is maintained. 34. Pain and suffering:- The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- for pain and suffering. During the course of treatment, the claimant underwent one surgery over his spinal cord bone and he also underwent treatment as in-patient for prolonged period. Considering the nature of injuries and duration of the hospitalization, and the treatment, the compensation of Rs.75,000/-awarded for pain and suffering is reasonable and the same maintained. 35. Compensation under Other heads:-The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards attendant charges, a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards extra-nourishment and a sum of Rs.19,450/-towards transportation are reasonable and the same are maintained. 36. Thus the total compensation of Rs.14,84,559/-awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.10,91,201/- as under:- The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and the same is maintained. 37. In the result, the compensation of Rs.14,84,559/-awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.320 of 1998 dated 04.04.2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Dharmapuri is reduced to Rs.10,40,321/-payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of Claim Petition till the date of realisation and the appeal is partly allowed. 38. It was stated before us that Appellant-Insurance Company has deposited the entire compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal along with accrued interest. Claimant is said to have withdrawn a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-with proportionate interest. Claimant is permitted to withdraw the balance reduced compensation along with accrued interest, immediately after the receipt of copy of the judgment. Appellant-Insurance Company is also permitted to withdraw the excess amount along with proportionate accrued interest lying in the credit of 320 of 1998 dated 04.04.2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tlribunal, Additional District Court, Dharmapuri immediately after the receipt of copy of the judgment. Appellant-Insurance Company is also permitted to withdraw the excess amount along with proportionate accrued interest lying in the credit of 320 of 1998 dated 04.04.2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tlribunal, Additional District Court, Dharmapuri immediately after the receipt of copy of the judgment. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. There is no order as to costs in this appeal.