JUDGMENT 1. The 1st respondent/claimant had filed in M.C.O.P.No.1225 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, against the appellant herein and two others and claimed Compensation a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-with interest. The claimant stated that he had travelled in the 3rd respondent/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus from Nagercoil to Kovilpatti on the Tirunelveli National High Way. On 03.07.2002, at about 06.45 p.m., the driver of the bus had driven the vehicle from south to north direction on the left hand side of the road, at that point of time the 1st respondents lorry bearing registration No.KL-7B-3589 had been driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, with the result the claimant herein and other passengers had sustained injuries, with the result the claimant herein and other passengers had sustained injuries, hence, the claimant had filed the said compensation petition against the respondents. 2. The 2nd respondent viz., New India Assurance Company had filed a counter statement and had resisted the claim petition stating that at the time of the accident the driver of the vehicle was not possessing driving licence. Further, the respondent denied the age, income and nature of injuries. In addition the claimant ought to have proved that the lorry was possessing valid documents viz., Insurance, Registered certificates and vehicle permit. Actually, the accident had been committed by the driver of the 3rd respondent, the compensation amount is also on the higher side. 3. The 3rd respondent/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus had filed a counter statement and denied this liability. The respondent further stated that the accident had been committed by the 1st respondent's driver. The 3rd respondent/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus is only a formal party. The respondent denied the age and income, natural injuries, mode of treatment and medical expenses. Besides the claimant had claimed higher compensation. 4. After going through the averments of all parties, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had framed two issues viz., (1) Whether the accident had been committed by the 1st respondent's driver in a rash and negligent manner? (2) If so, what is the quantum of compensation, the claimant is entitled to receive? Besides the claimant had claimed higher compensation. 4. After going through the averments of all parties, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had framed two issues viz., (1) Whether the accident had been committed by the 1st respondent's driver in a rash and negligent manner? (2) If so, what is the quantum of compensation, the claimant is entitled to receive? On the side of the claimant was examined as PW.1 and the doctor was examined as PW.2 and 12 documents were marked viz., Ex.P1-F.I.R, Exs.P2 and P3-Medical Certificates had been issued by the Thiravium Hospital; Ex.P4-Photo series with negatives; Ex.P5-Admission slip; Ex.P6-Salary certificate; Ex.P7-leave particulars; Ex.P8-medical expenses bills; Exs.P9 and P.10-medical bills; Exs.P11 and P.12-disability certificate and x ray certificate respectively. On the side of the respondent no witnesses and no documentary evidence. 5. PW.1, had adduced evidence stating that the 3rd respondent is only a formal party and no claim against them. The 1st and 2nd respondents are liable to pay compensation since, the 1st respondent driver had committed the said accident on 03.07.2002, at about 05.45 p.m. PW.1, further stated that he had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries on his right hand. PW.1, further stated that due to the said accident his right hand joint had been removed. Immediately, after the accident he had been referred to Thiravium Hospital at Nagercoil for further treatment wherein he had undergone treatment from 03.07.2002 to 06.08.2002 as an inpatient. During the period of treatment the broken bones on his hand were removed and K-wire had been fixed in the bone removal area, besides iron rod was also affixed and all this was done through surgical operation. Further, the injured claimant should that he had undergone treatment from 13.09.2002 to 16.10.2002 as inpatient, during the period of treatment the hip bone was removed and it has been fixed on his right hand. PW.1, further stated that during the period of medical treatment he was on leave and his monthly salary reduced and he needs other support in all ways. At the time of the accident his age was 49 years and his salary was Rs.12,500/- per month and he had marked the above mentioned documents. 6. PW.1, further stated that during the period of medical treatment he was on leave and his monthly salary reduced and he needs other support in all ways. At the time of the accident his age was 49 years and his salary was Rs.12,500/- per month and he had marked the above mentioned documents. 6. PW.2, doctor had adduced evidence and he had verified he medical records and assessed the disability as 70% sustained by the claimant and if had been determined after taking x rays, the rest of the doctor's version coincide with the claimant's evidence. After considering the said evidence the learned Tribunal had awarded Rs.4,51,452/-as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. 7. Aggrieved by the award and decree the appellant had filed the above appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the claimant is a Government Employee and he rejoined his job in the original position, as such the compensation had been awarded under the head of disability, after adopting the multiplier method which is not pertinent in this case. Therefore, the compensation under the head of disability i.e., 3,88,752/- is to be set aside. The learned counsel further submits that in the said accident two heavy vehicles dashed each other in a head on collusion therefore, contributory negligence arises in this case. The doctor had assessed the disability as 70% is on the higher side. Since, the claimant had sustained one bone fracture injury. The medical bills are also not appropriate. The learned counsel further said that the award passed on 18.08.2004, during that period the rate of interest was 7.5% as per banking regulation. Learned counsel for the appellant cited a judgment which is reported in 1999 ACJ 366 in M. Jaganathan Vs. Pallavan Transport Corporation Limited. The medical bills are also not appropriate. The learned counsel further said that the award passed on 18.08.2004, during that period the rate of interest was 7.5% as per banking regulation. Learned counsel for the appellant cited a judgment which is reported in 1999 ACJ 366 in M. Jaganathan Vs. Pallavan Transport Corporation Limited. "Negligence – accident while alighting – Bus stopped at a place due to traffic jam and the conductor asked the passengers whose destination the claimant got down from the from entrance but before the claimant who was the last could get down completely the driver moved the bus, claimant fell down and left front wheel of the bus ran over him – defence that the injured got down from the moving bus at a place which was not a bus stop and the conductor did not ask the passengers to get down at that place – FIR recorded within 10 minutes of the accident is to the effect that the bus stopped there and the passengers alighted – eyewitness corroborated claimant's version Tribunal held that the claimant was himself solely negligent – Appellate Court reversed the finding and held that the crew of the bus alone was negligent. 9. The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant is a Government employee as Senior Auditor and after the accident he is unable to perform service in an affection manner, since he had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries on his right hand joint and he always feels discomfort and the loss of amenities, such as normal ablutions. The claimant had undergone two surgical operations on two different occasions at various hospitals as inpatient and out patient. During the period of medical treatment he received reduced salary. Learned counsel further submitted that the transport, nutrition, attender charges and loss of earning the medical treatment convalsing period, discomfort permanently and loss of normal amenities. Learned counsel for the appellant cited a judgment which is reported in 2002-2-L.W.109 in New India Assurance Company Limited, Chennai Vs.1.K.Kartheeswaran, 2.R.T.Prince (No relief is claimed against the 2nd respondent and he is given up in (C.M.P.No.19396 of 2000). "Motor Vehicles Act (1988) S.164-Claimant aged 17, a school student sustained serious injuries due to rash and driving of a lorry, left leg amputated above the knee, dislocation of bone, left ankle, knee, both shoulders, right elbow, head injury etc. "Motor Vehicles Act (1988) S.164-Claimant aged 17, a school student sustained serious injuries due to rash and driving of a lorry, left leg amputated above the knee, dislocation of bone, left ankle, knee, both shoulders, right elbow, head injury etc. ,towards claim for Rs.16,00,000/- the Tribunal awarded Rs.14,87,500/-on appeal by Insurance Company amount was modified as Rs.13,90,000/-loss of income for 30 years should be estimated by adopting 35 years as multiplier and 6-5 lakhs awarded under this head-award of Rs.1 lakh towards mental torture and agony due to amputation, Rs.3,00,000/-for pain and surrering. 10. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy regarding 1st issue viz., liability. Further, the quantum of compensation has been assessed under the head of disability, after adopting the multiplied method, since the claimants avocation has not bee totally affected. The view of this Court is that total disablement means a person in a vegetate state. Therefore, the multiplier method is set aside and this Court restructures the compensation as follows: Disability- Rs.1,40,000/-; Medical Expenses-Rs.55,000/-; pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- Loss of earning Rs.25,000/-Towards transport, attender charges and nutrition each of Rs.10,000/-; Agony of discomfort on a permanent basis, loss of amenities of Rs.1,00,000/-. The aggregate compensation amounting to Rs.3,70,000/- as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. The rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% reduction. This Court directs the appellant to pay the compensation as per this Court's findings a sum of Rs.3,70,000/-with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order into the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1225 of 2002, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, after deducting earlier payment if any made by the appellant. 11. After, such a deposit the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation as per this Court decision from Trial Court after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. 12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. 11. After, such a deposit the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation as per this Court decision from Trial Court after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. 12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.1225 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/II Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. Dated 18.08. 2004, is modified. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.