JUDGMENT : C.S. Karnan, J. The appellant/claimant was riding on his TVS-Champ bearing registration No.TN-67W-2724, on the Tenkasi-Rajapalayam main road, at Rajapalayam on 26.03.2008 at about 01.30 p.m. At that point of time the first respondent vehicle namely maxi-cab van, bearing registration No.TN-69K-9698, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner coming at high speed on the same direction and attempting to overtake the two wheeler and dashed against the claimants vehicle, in the result the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture of grave nature. Immediately, he was taken to Devadoss Hospital at Madurai, wherein he had undergone treatment at various intervals, hence, the claimant has filed in M.C.O.P.No.74 of 2009, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Srivilliputhur and claiming a compensation a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- against the insurer and the insured. 2. The insurer namely United India Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent stated that the claimant had not included the owner and insurance company of the motor cycle which had been ridden by the claimant. The motor cycle had not been insured by any insurance company at the time of the accident. The rider of the motor cycle was not having licence to rider the said two wheeler, the same was confirmed through Motor Vehicle Inspector's report. Actually the petitioner was learning driving on the motor cycle and the teaching Inspector being the Pillion rider, at that time, the rider of the motor cycle, suddenly swerved the motor cycle on the right side without noticing the first respondent vehicle which was following behind him and in this manner dashed against the first respondent's vehicle. The respondent further denied the nature of injuries, mode of treatment and income of the injured person. 3. After verifying the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: (1) On whom could the negligence be attributed to? Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation?; (2) If so what is the quantum of compensation the claimant is entitled to receive?. 4. On the side of the claimant eight witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 8 forty two documents were marked as Exhs. P1 to P42. On the side of the respondent no witness was examined and no documents was marked. 4. On the side of the claimant eight witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 8 forty two documents were marked as Exhs. P1 to P42. On the side of the respondent no witness was examined and no documents was marked. PW.1, had adduced evidence stating that on 26.03.2008 at about 01.30 p.m., he had ridden the two wheeler namely TVS-Champ bearing registration No, TN-67W-2724 on the Tenkasi - Rajapalaym main road. When he was nearing NTR Supermarket on the left side of the road when at that point of time the first respondent vehicle Maxi Cab bearing registration No.TN-68K-9698 came behind the claimant's vehicle on the same direction i.e., from north to south in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. 5. The claimant had marked the below mentioned documents namely: Ex.P1- F.I.R; Ex.P2-Criminal Court judgment; Ex.P3-wound certificate; Ex.P4-medical bills; Ex.P5-attached bills; Ex.P6-lab report; Ex.P7-Sundarapalayam hospital medical certificate; Ex.P8-Physiotherapist receipt; Ex.P9-photo copy showing the claimant's position at the moment of accident; Ex.P10-photo copy showing his present physical condition; Exhs. 11 and P12-land lease agreement; Ex.P13 to P15 -another land lease agreement; Exs.P16 and P17-Coconuts merchants Association certificates; Ex.P18-driving licence; Ex.P19- educational qualification certificate; Exs.P20 to P37- cultivating land particulars; Ex.P38-disability certificate; Ex.P39-x ray; Ex.P40-medical records; Ex.P41-x ray; Ex.P42-bill book. 6. PW.1, further stated that the respondent vehicle dashed against his two wheeler and dragged him along with the vehicle for around 150 meters, in the result the muscle of the right hand were removed while the right hand became totally damaged, immediately he was rushed to the Devadoss Hospital, Madurai, wherein he had undergone treatment as inpatient for about one month as an inpatient. During the period of medical treatment he had undergone a plastic surgery operation, thereafter, the operation no improvement on his right hand. PW.1, further stated that again he had undergone major surgical operation on 26,.03.2008 and 28.03.2008. After these two major operations, there was totally no improvement on his right hand, as such the entire right hand and totally insensitive and just handling from his shoulder. PW.1, further stated that after the accident he is unable to do his avocation as a Coconut merchant and is also unable to get involved in the cultivation of the land as lessee and owner which is an extent of 15 acres. PW.1, further stated that after the accident he is unable to do his avocation as a Coconut merchant and is also unable to get involved in the cultivation of the land as lessee and owner which is an extent of 15 acres. PW.1, further stated that before the accident he had been earning more than Rs. 30,000/- per month through multiple incomes. PW.1, had spent a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards medical expenses. 7. PW.8, Dr. Chidambaram, had adduced evidence stating that the claimant was admitted at Devadoss multi speciality hospital as an inpatient and the doctor said that he was totally in charge of the claimant for his entire treatment. The claimant's right hand muscles were crushed and hence removed exposing the bones and nerves. The complete right hand has become insensitive. PW.8, further stated that the claimant had also sustained grievous injuries on his left thigh, left knee and on the foot. Surgical operation also conducted on his right hand and a steel rod has been fixed on the operated area besides skin grafting operation was conducted for which one more operation was made to take muscle tissue from the stomach. PW.8, further stated that the claimant subsequently underwent treatment as an outpatient for a lengthy period. His right hand appearance is totally disfigured and of no physical usage beside the entire portion is scarred. Now, the right hand can be seen as a limb of no use and disfigured. In the operated area of his stomach is scared for 22x10 cms. On the right hand the scar is of 22x6 cms. Another scar is on the right hand for 11x7 cms. The right hand joint is bent by 450. 8. PW.8, further stated that the scars on his stomach, right hand and on the face are permanent in nature and the disfigurement will remain permanently. The doctor further stated that one more operation is necessary on his right hand joint for which future medical expenditure will be Rs. 1,60,000/-. On cross examination the PW.8, stated that the claimant can not seek financial assistant under Kalainger Insurance Scheme for the 2nd operation required. He assessed the disability as 65. The right hand joint is shortened and noticeable. 9. 1,60,000/-. On cross examination the PW.8, stated that the claimant can not seek financial assistant under Kalainger Insurance Scheme for the 2nd operation required. He assessed the disability as 65. The right hand joint is shortened and noticeable. 9. On recording the evidence of the claimant and on perusing the exhibits marked by the claimant and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels on either side, the learned Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the claimant's income was Rs. 15,000/- per month and assessed the compensation as follows: Rs. 7,20,000/- (Rs. 15,000/-x12x8x50/100) under the head of loss of income after adopting the multiplier method; Rs. 1,60,724/- under the head of medical expenses; Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of pain and suffering; Rs. 25,000/- towards attender charges; Rs. 25,000/- under the head of nutrition; Rs. 50,000/- under the head of loss of amenities and Rs. 15,000/- for transport. Besides, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under the head of physiotherapy treatment. In total the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 11,45,724/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation passed in M.C.O.P.No.74 of 2009, dated 09.04.2011. 10. Aggrieved by the said award and decree the appellant/United India Insurance Company has filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.1310 of 2011 and challenged the quantum of compensation and liability. 11. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation the claimant has filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.1348 of 2011 for additional compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- with interest. 12. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the income of the claimant has been fixed as Rs. 15,000/- per month without any documentary evidence. On the basis of the pattas in the name of PWs 2 to 7, the tribunal could not come to the conclusion that the claimant was a cultivating tenant. In order to prove the cultivation of tenancy, the names of the land lord and tenancy has to be registered by the registry maintained by the Revenue Taluk Office. Therefore, the cultivable income of the claimant taken by the Tribunal is an erroneous view. Further, the claimant had not proved his source of income from cultivation. Regards Coconut business no documentary evidence for the said business transaction. The multiple method adopted by the Tribunal is not appropriate. Therefore, the cultivable income of the claimant taken by the Tribunal is an erroneous view. Further, the claimant had not proved his source of income from cultivation. Regards Coconut business no documentary evidence for the said business transaction. The multiple method adopted by the Tribunal is not appropriate. Since, the claimant sustained injuries, the Tribunal had awarded compensation a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of pain and suffering and Rs. 25,000/- under the head of attendant and nourishment; Rs. 50,000/- under the head of loss of amenities which are on the higher side besides being irrelevant. 13. The learned counsel supporting this appeal had cited two citations namely: (i) State of Haryana and another v. Jasbir Kaur and others, 2003 (3) TAC 569 (SC) : 2003 ACJ 1800 (SC). "Motor Vehicles Act, 168-Quantum of Just compensation-Determination of-No material placed on record to prove earning of deceased - land possessed by deceased still remaining with claimants as his legal heirs - claimants may be required to engage persons to look after agriculture Normal rule about deprivation of income not strictly applicable to income through agricultural source - attendant circumstances have to be considered. Quantum of compensation - Death of an agriculturist aged 25 years - monthly income fixed at Rs. 3,000/- per month - multiplier of 18 applied and compensation fixed at Rs. 4,32,000/- plus Rs. 2,000/- added for funeral expenses - Claimants held entitled to Rs. 4,34,000/-". (ii) Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Ram Prasad Varma and others, 2009 (2) CTC 87 : 2009 ACJ 1006 (SC). "Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 168 - Injury case compensation - respondent No.1 was hit by lorry and lorry ran over his legs - Both legs were amputated-compensation granted on basis of structured formula - whether one-third amount to be deducted from total income - Held: A person, although alive, but when not in a position to move and even for every small thing he has to depend upon services of another, 1/3rd deduction of amount from his total income need not always be insisted. One-third amount is deducted from computation of compensation from the total income on the premise that some expenses were necessary for one's own survival. One-third amount is deducted from computation of compensation from the total income on the premise that some expenses were necessary for one's own survival. Incidentally, we may notice that in the note appended to the second schedule, the amount of compensation arrived in the case of fatal accident claims is required to be reduced by one-third in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. A person, although alive, but when he is not in a position to move and even for every small thing he has to depend upon the services of another, in our opinion, a direction to deduct 1.3rd of the amount from his total income need always be insisted upon. 14. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries and also that his right hand muscles being crushed. The claimant sustained injuries all over his body namely: Raw area with deglove injury of antero lateral aspect of lower third of arm, forearm and dorsum of the hand; Complete loss of brachioradialis, ECRL, ECRB Muscles, ECU, EPL, ADP and EPB and part of Ext.digitoram muscles; Multiple abrasion over the face; Laceration upper lip; Laceration right supra orbital, intra orbital area; Abrasion chest and right shoulder; Multiple abrasions over anterior aspect, face right shoulder; Lacerated injury of 3x2 cms over dorsum of left foot; Degloving injury over dorso lateral aspect of right forearm; Muscles and tendons over extensor aspect exposed and cut; Radius is exposed through its length; Multiple injuries all over the body; The learned counsel further argued that the Physiotherapic treatment the claimant had spent Rs. 88,250/- but the Tribunal had granted Rs. 50,000/-. The Tribunal ought to have granted compensation under the head of permanent disability and loss of earning capacity. The learned counsel further submits that the claimant had undergone three surgical operations namely two plastic surgeries for bone fracture and one skin grafting. As per the qualified Dr's opinion i.e., PW.8-one more plastic surgical operation is to be conducted on the right hand wrist. There is a shortening of the hand which is noticeable. The claimant had sustained major extensive scars on his right hand, stomach and face which are permanent and showing disfigurement. The claimant's right hand has shrunk with the bones and nerves noticeable and with the hand dangling. There is a shortening of the hand which is noticeable. The claimant had sustained major extensive scars on his right hand, stomach and face which are permanent and showing disfigurement. The claimant's right hand has shrunk with the bones and nerves noticeable and with the hand dangling. Therefore, the entire physical position has been affected hence the claimant is unable to involve himself in any kind of agricultural operations on his own land and leased land. The lessor had adduced evidence stating that they had let out the land to the claimant for cultivation purpose on lease basis, since he is a good cultivator and having knowledge in the agricultural field. The claimant is a field worker and he used to go to various coconut gardens for purchasing of matured coconuts for his business. Now, he unable to pursue the same occupation likewise he is unable to attend to any kind of agricultural work, as such his total avocation is affected, hence, the learned Tribunal had adopted the multiplier method for awarding compensation under the loss of income head. The Tribunal ought to have granted compensation a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- under the head of future medical expenses. The Tribunal had not granted an adequate compensation under the head of transport expenses since the tax bill marked as Ex.P5, claimant had studied upto college level and to prove the same he had marked Ex.P19-Educational qualification certificate. 15. Per, contra the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the claimant is not in a vegetate condition and is not in possession of driving licence to ride his motor cycle. In the said accident the claimants two wheeler is also involved, as such the owner of the two wheeler and his Insurance Company are necessary parties but they were not included as parties in the claim petition since contributory negligence had arisen in this case. 16. In reply the learned counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant is having a driving licence and the same was marked as Ex.P18. The FIR has been registered against the driver of the 1st respondent, who was punished by the Criminal Court as he was an offender and committed the accident by driving in a harsh and negligent manner, to prove the same Exs.P1 and P2 had marked namely FIR and judgment of the Criminal Court respectively. The FIR has been registered against the driver of the 1st respondent, who was punished by the Criminal Court as he was an offender and committed the accident by driving in a harsh and negligent manner, to prove the same Exs.P1 and P2 had marked namely FIR and judgment of the Criminal Court respectively. The medical expenses had been reduced by the Tribunal without assignees any reason, since the claimant had marked medical bills Exs.P4 and P8. In order to prove the physical condition of the claimant the photograph was marked as Exs.P9 and P10, which clearly shows that the claimants physical position has totally deteriorated besides other medical records and Dr's evidence. 17. The learned counsel supporting this appeal had cited two citations namely: (i) Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Coimbatore Division - I, rep. By its Managing Director v. Senthil Kumar, 2011 (1) TN MAC 121 (DB). "Income - Assessment-injured/claimant aged 26 years doing Power-loom business and earning Rs. 5,000/- per month as per claim - Tribunal taking into consideration minimum wages fixed by Government, taken Rs. 100/- per day towards physical work exerted by him. Rs. 50/- per day as his profit and Rs. 50 per day on account of supervision, totally Rs. 200/- per day and fixed monthly income at Rs. 6,000/- if, proper contention that Tribunal was not correct in fixing Rs. 6,000/- per month. When his specific claim was that of Rs. 5,000/- per month as per pleading in claim petition and his oral evidence - Held, it is appropriate to fix monthly income at Rs. 200/- per day and fixed monthly income at Rs. 6,000/- if, proper contention that Tribunal was not correct in fixing Rs. 6,000/- per month. When his specific claim was that of Rs. 5,000/- per month as per pleading in claim petition and his oral evidence - Held, it is appropriate to fix monthly income at Rs. 5,000/- per month as per oral evidence." Permanent Disability-Loss of Earning Power - Assessment - injured aged 26 years running and managing Power loom business, sustained multiple fractures and lacerated injuries-Doctor/PW.2, who examined injured assessed disability at 59%-Doctor/PW2's evidence that fractured left wrist remains with pain and he cannot lift his wrist; he cannot use his left leg; no movement in right leg which is shortened by 4 cms; right thigh seen with healed scars as a result of plastic surgery; fibula bone and right thigh bone mal-united; left wrist and pelvis bones show degeneration-disablement in attending to his routine work as claimant could not squat and suffers while standing, walking or climbing steps-Tribunal fixing capacity at 100%- If proper-evidence of PW.1/claimant that he could not do any work or run his business due to disabilities - claimant that he could not do any work or run his business due to disabilities - claimant not capable of managing and running Power-loom unit in favour of PW.3-Claimant though suffered permanent disability to tune of 59%, medical evidence abundant in reaching conclusion that injured totally disabled from pursuing routine work- Hence, for calculating total loss of income, permanent disability of 100% has to be taken-Tribunal taking permanent disability/loss of earning power at 100%, therefore held, proper - since injured has been permanently disabled from doing his work as before, it is apt to adopt multiplier method to arrive at total loss of future income." (ii) Sri Kumaresh v. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another, 2011 (2) TN MAC 10 (SC) : 2011 ACJ 1975 (SC). "Disability-Loss of Earning Capacity - Assessment - Lorry ran over right leg of Appellant/Claimant, who is a Building Centering Worker - Amputation of right let below knee - Doctor assessed permanent disability at 70% of right lower limb and 35% of whole body - Tribunal fixed disability at 20% of whole body-High Court in Appeal, looking into Schedule I to WC Act, where percentage of loss of earning capacity due to amputation below knee with stump exceeding 12.70 cms determined at 50%, fixed disability at 50% as against 20% - Injured/Claimant being a manual labourer loss of leg below knee will drastically affect his ability to perform building centering work or even any other manual labour - Hence, disability as assessed by High Court, held sustaintable." 18. From the foregoing discussions this Court is of the view: (1) the claimant had undergone three operations on his right hand and stomach namely plastic surgery and skin grafting; (2) On three occasions the claimant had undergone treatment as an inpatient as well as out patient for length period at various multi speciality hospitals besides physiotherapic treatment; (3) Before the accident, the claimant was doing cultivation for huge extent of land about 15 acres for his own and on lease. This was confirmed through Exs.P11 to P15 and P21 to P37, besides the claimant had marked two documents as Exs.P16and P17 for engaging in coconut business; (4) The claimants physical condition has totally deteriorated, therefore, he is unable to do his avocation due to his physical condition or for the matter any other occupation for his livelihood, hence multiplier method is applicable in the instant case; (6) Adequate compensation had not been granted under the head of physiotherapy treatment, since the claimant had marked Ex.P8 medical bill; (7) The claimant is entitled to receive compensation under the head of future medical expenses for one more major operation on the right hand wrist of the claimant. Further, transport expenditure had not been granted as per Ex.P5 i.e., tax bills. 19. On considering 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 listed the above 7, this Court is inclined to grant an additional compensation, Rs. 1,60,000/- under the head of future medical expenses for one more operation as per Dr's evidence. Rs. 1,60,000/- under the head of future medical expenses for one more operation as per Dr's evidence. Rs. 38,250/- towards balance medical bills as per Ex.P8. Rs. 1,00,000/- towards permanent discomfort and Rs. 50,000/- towards disfigurement, in total this Court awards Rs. 3,48,250/- as adequate compensation to the claimant, this additional compensation amount will also carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. This Court granted a total compensation including the original compensation amount of the Tribunal a sum of Rs. 14,93,974/- as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. This Court directs the United India Insurance Company to deposit a sum of Rs. 14,93,974/- 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 four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, after deducting earlier deposit which has been made by the Insurance Company. 20. After such deposit being made before the Tribunal, the claimant is at liberty to withdraw the entire compensation with accrued interest thereon and costs lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.74 of 2009, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Srivilliputhur, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order, subject to deduction of withdrawals if any made under this Court order. 21. In the ultimate analysis the appeal filed by the United India Insurance Company, in C.M.A.(MD)No.1310 of 2011, is dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimant in CMA.(MD).No.1348 of 2011 is partly allowed. Consequently, the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.74 of 2009, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Srivilliputhur, dated 09.04.2011, is modified. No costs.