Judgment These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the Appellant Insurance Company against the Judgment and Decree dated 7.3.2003 made in MCOP.Nos.301 and 302/2001 by the learned Subordinate Judge (MACT) Bhavani. 2. By the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,43,588/- as total compensation to the injured claimant N. Chandrasekar in MCOP.No.301/2001/the 1st Respondent in CMA.No.3061/2003 for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident that had occurred on 1.6.2001 and awarded a sum of Rs.1,67,138/-as total compensation to the injured claimant K. Govindaraj in MCOP.No.302/2001 for the injuries sustained by him in the same accident and awarded interest at 9 per cent from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization in both the claim petitions. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 1.6.2001 at about 7.00 a.m., both the claimants alighted from the bus at Chinnathambipalayam and after getting down from the bus, they were walking along the Chinnathambipalayam-Nagalur Road to go to Nagalur to supply tea powder pockets on the left side of the road and when they were going in front of Perumalkoil Karadu, the offending vehicle (TVS-50) driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimants, causing multiple injuries to them. Immediately, they were taken to Surya Hospital, Anthiyur and they were given treatment. They claimed compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.4 lakhs respectively before the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by them. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence, held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded compensation as stated above. These appeals have been filed by the Appellant Insurance Company, seeking reduction of compensation. 4. Mr. N.B. Surekha, the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company contended that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is unreasonable and is disproportionate to the injuries sustained by them in the accident. 5. On the other hand, Mr. N. Manokaran, the learned counsel for the Respondents/claimants supported the impugned award in all respects and contended that the impugned award is just and reasonable and is in consonance with the evidence placed on record. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record and the impugned judgment and award. 7. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record and the impugned judgment and award. 7. In so far as the claimant in MCOP.No.301/2001 is concerned, he sustained fracture of lateral 1/3rd of left clavicle and fracture of shaft of right forearm. He also sustained abrasion 10x2cm over left eyebrow. PW.3 Dr. R. Krishnasamy, who examined the claimant and assessed his disability, has deposed that on account of the fracture suffered by him on the left clavicle and right thigh, he found a painful wound scar about 31 x = cm present over the lateral aspect of the right thigh extending from upper part down to the lateral aspect of the right knee and a painful wound scar about 9x1/4 cm over the front of the right side of illiac crest. He also found a painful wound scar about 11x1/4cm posterior medial aspect of the right glottal region. He also found that thigh muscles are wasted about 2 cm in circumference. Length of thigh was also shortened to an extent of 1 cm height and hip movements were limited and attempted movements are painful. He also deposed that the claimant is not able to sit cross legged on the floor while eating and also not able to sit for toilet purposes. He has deposed that walking for long distance and long time standing would increase pain in right hip, right thigh and knee. He had also found swelling over the lateral 1/3rd of the left clavicle and deformity on the bone was also noted on the right clavicle region resulting in restriction of movements of the left shoulder, which is also painful. He has further stated that the claimant will not be able to lift any heavy objects and left clavicle length was also reduced to 1 cm. With the above findings, he has assessed disability at 60 per cent as permanent and partial. 8. The claimant in MCOP.No.301/2001 was running a grocery shop and was dealing in tea powder business. According to him, he was earning Rs.7000/-p.m. as income. The Tribunal has fixed his monthly income as Rs.2000/-p.m., which is very low and not reasonable. With the above findings, he has assessed disability at 60 per cent as permanent and partial. 8. The claimant in MCOP.No.301/2001 was running a grocery shop and was dealing in tea powder business. According to him, he was earning Rs.7000/-p.m. as income. The Tribunal has fixed his monthly income as Rs.2000/-p.m., which is very low and not reasonable. Though there is no credible evidence to prove the income of the injured claimant, but however, as a grocery shop owner, he would have earned not less than Rs.3000/- p.m. as income and hence, his monthly income could be taken as Rs.3000/-. 9. The Doctor has assessed his disability at 60 per cent towards particular part of the body and the Tribunal took the entire 60 per cent disability in computing the loss of earning power. When the claimant suffers permanent disability as a result of the injuries, assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of the said permanent disability and on his earning capacity. The Tribunal has mechanically applied the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of loss of earning capacity, which findings is liable to be set aside. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal in cases of permanent disability suffered by the injured is the effect and impact of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of percentage of income, it has to be quantified in terms of money to arrive at the future loss of earning by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine the loss of dependency. 10. Instead of taking the entire 60 per cent disability, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the functional disability and fixed the quantum of compensation payable to the injured claimant towards loss of future earnings due to the disability suffered by him. Therefore, Looking into the injuries suffered by him and his avocation as a grocery shop owner, which can be run with the help of other persons, the percentage of functional disability could be assessed at 25 per cent. Therefore, by applying the multiplier of 18, considering the age of the claimant, who was aged 25 years old at the time of the accident, the loss of future earnings due to the disability suffered by him would come to Rs.1,62,000/-. 11. Therefore, by applying the multiplier of 18, considering the age of the claimant, who was aged 25 years old at the time of the accident, the loss of future earnings due to the disability suffered by him would come to Rs.1,62,000/-. 11. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.20000/-towards pain and suffering, which needs to be enhanced considering the nature of injuries suffered by him and the treatment undergone by him and accordingly, it is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. The claimant has filed Ex.A8 medical bills to show that he has incurred a sum of Rs.58388/- towards medical expenses, which he is entitled to and the same is awarded. Further, a sum of Rs.20,000/- for attendants charges, Rs.20,000/- for disfiguration, Rs.5000/-for transportation expenses and Rs.5000/-for extra nourishment are awarded. In all, a sum of Rs.3,00,388/- is awarded as total compensation with interest at 9 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization to the claimant in MCOP.No.301/2001 as detailed below:- 12. In so far as the claimant in MCOP.No.302/2001 is concerned, he suffered fracture of radius on the right forearm. He also sustained lacerated wound over the scalp and contusion over right upper arm. PW.3 Dr. Krishnasamy, who has examined him and assessed his disability as 30 per cent, has deposed that the claimant has a painful adherent wound scar extending 9x1/4cm on the right forearm and also painful wound scar over the body of the left scapula. A scar was also found on the left parietal area of the scalp. He has further stated that movements of right wrist are limited and painful and the forearm muscles are wasted 3cm in circumference and length of the forearm is shortened by 1 cm. He has stated that the claimant will not be able to lift weights and the movements are painful. Plate and screw heads were found touching the skin of right forearm. He has further stated that there was malunited fracture lower 1/3rd of the right radius and therefore, he required one more surgery for removal of plate and screws. With the above findings, he has assessed disability at 30 per cent. 13. The claimant in MCOP.No.302/2001 was working as a salesman under the claimant in MCOP.No.301/2001. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by him, Rs.2000/-per percentage could be granted to him, as there is no loss of earning capacity. With the above findings, he has assessed disability at 30 per cent. 13. The claimant in MCOP.No.302/2001 was working as a salesman under the claimant in MCOP.No.301/2001. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by him, Rs.2000/-per percentage could be granted to him, as there is no loss of earning capacity. Therefore, for 30 per cent disability, a sum of Rs.60,000/-is awarded for continuing disability. 14. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10000/-towards pain and suffering, which needs to be enhanced considering the nature of injuries suffered by him and the treatment undergone by him and accordingly, it is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. The claimant has filed medical bills to show that he has incurred a sum of Rs.26,838/- towards medical expenses, which he is entitled to and the same is awarded. Further, a sum of Rs.10,000/- for attendants charges, Rs.10,000/- for disfiguration, Rs.5000/-for transportation expenses and Rs.5000/- for extra nourishment and Rs.20,000/- for loss of amenities are awarded. In all, a sum of Rs.1,61,838/-is awarded as total compensation with interest at 9 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization to the claimant in MCOP.No.302/2001 as detailed below:- 15. In the result, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed. The impugned award in MCOP.No.301/2001 is reduced to Rs.3,00,388 from Rs.3,43,588/- and the impugned award in MCOP.No.302/2001 is reduced to Rs.1,61,838 from Rs.1,67,138/-as mentioned above. The claimants in MCOP.Nos.301 and 302/2001 are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,00,388/- (Rupees three lakhs three hundred eighty eight only) and Rs.1,61,838/- (Rupees one lakh sixty one thousand eight hundred thirty eight only) respectively, with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization as detailed above. Both the claimants in MCOP.Nos.301 and 302/2001 are permitted to withdraw their respective award amounts with interest after giving credit to the amount already withdrawn by them if any. The Appellant is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount with proportionate interest in both the claim petitions, after satisfying the award amounts as stated above. No costs.