JUDGMENT : P. Devadass 1. The State Transport Corporation questions the award of the Tribunal. On 01.07.2007, in a road accident, the respondent sustained multiple injuries. His right leg below ankle was amputated. The Tribunal fixed the negligence as between the respondent and the appellant's bus driver in the ratio of 10% : 90%. The Tribunal totally determined Rs. 3,23,706/-. Out of that, it awarded Rs. 2,91,335/- to the respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that after having awarded Rs. 45,000/- for disability, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded again Rs. 1,56,000/- for loss of earning power. It is double compensation. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that without any evidence the Tribunal fastened the respondent with 10% negligence. The Tribunal took a low income. In the facts and circumstances, multiplier method ought to have adopted. However, only a rough and ready method has been adopted. That has resulted in granting him very less compensation. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. Perused the materials on record and went through the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal attributed 10% of negligence to the respondent due to his contributory negligence. 6. Contributory negligence is not a matter of assumption or presumption. It must be based on positive evidence. A reckless act on the part of the respondent must be established by evidence. 7. In the instant case, on 1.7.2007, at about 7.10 p.m., at the bus-stop, near the Taluk Office, chengottai, the accident took place. At that time, the appellant's bus came driven by R.W.1. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that before he could enter into the bus, R.W.1 suddenly took the bus, he fell down and the wheels ran over his right leg. It is also the evidence of P.W.1 that before the conductor could blow the whistle, R.W.1 took the bus. Ex.P1-FIR also contain these version. After investigation, police filed Ex.P.6 chargesheet as against R.W.1. R.W.1 naturally would exculpate himself and throw the blame on the respondent. It is the duty of the bus crew to ensure safe entry into the bus. There was no complaint immediately from R.W.1 to his employer or to the police as to his version of manner of accident. Thus, we hold that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of R.W.1. It is the duty of the bus crew to ensure safe entry into the bus. There was no complaint immediately from R.W.1 to his employer or to the police as to his version of manner of accident. Thus, we hold that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of R.W.1. Thus, the respondent cannot be saddled with 10% negligence. 8. As a result of the accident, the respondent sustained amputation in his right leg. He is an agriculturist. Then he was 45 years old. P.W.2, the doctor determined his disability at 70% and issued him Ex.P16 disability certificate. Towards disability, the Tribunal granted him Rs. 45,000/-. 9. The Tribunal also awarded him Rs. 1,56,000/- for loss of future earning power. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that this is giving him double compensation. 10. 'Disability' has different connotations. Disability may affect one's free use of limbs. It is physical disability. Disability may also impede, restrain one's ability to earn. It is fiscal disability. Both are not one and the same. They are different. They can be separate heads for awarding compensation. Thus, it will not be awarding double compensation. 11. It is not that in all cases, multiplier method has to be adopted. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. If, in view of the disability, the injured has been disabled either partially or wholly and that has incapacitated him in his ability to earn, in order to give him just compensation, multiplier method has to be adopted. 12. In this case, the respondent was 45 years old. An agriculturist. He lost part of his limb. Hereafter, while walking he has to limp. It will affect his usage of his limbs. So, he cannot work or function as before. It will affect his ability to earn/earning capacity. In the circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier method. 13. The Tribunal taken Rs. 1,500/- as his monthly income. The accident was on 01.07.2007. Considering the then prevailing circumstances, Rs. 1,500/- appears to be very low. In the circumstances, we would take Rs. 2,000/- per month. The applicable multiplier is 13'. Now, calculating on the above lines, loss of future earning power is assessed at Rs. 3,12,000/- (Rs. 2,000/- x 12 x 13). 14. The Tribunal deducted 1/3 from his income towards his pleasure and other expenses. 1,500/- appears to be very low. In the circumstances, we would take Rs. 2,000/- per month. The applicable multiplier is 13'. Now, calculating on the above lines, loss of future earning power is assessed at Rs. 3,12,000/- (Rs. 2,000/- x 12 x 13). 14. The Tribunal deducted 1/3 from his income towards his pleasure and other expenses. In injury cases, such deduction shall not be effected. 15. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 75,000/- towards pain and suffering. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, in the circumstances of the case, it is on the higher side. In the facts and circumstances, we reduce it to Rs. 30,000/-. In the result, the award of the Tribunal is modified. The respondent is awarded Rs. 4,34,706/- with 7.5% interest p.a. from the date of filing the original petition till deposit. Within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, the appellant shall deposit the entire amount, less amount, if any already deposited. On such deposit, the respondent is permitted to withdraw the entire amount, less amount, if any already withdrawn. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.