Judgment :- P. Devadass, J. 1. This appeal by the Oriental Insurance Company is against the Award dated 23.07.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Palani in M.C.O.P. No.76 of 1999. 2. The Tribunal totally awarded Rs. 38,50,000/-to the first respondent for amputation and grievous injuries suffered by him in the road accident. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that no satisfactory proof as to his business income has been produced before the Tribunal, lands belong to the joint family, however, agricultural income has been taken, a lesser sum has been sought for towards medical expenses, however, Rs.5,00,000/-has been awarded, all resulted in awarding huge amount as compensation. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent / claimant would submit that the Tribunal has properly considered the evidence and awarded compensation. He would also submit that actually what was granted is very less as 1/3rd from the income has been deducted, which will not arise in injury cases. 5. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record and also the impugned Award of the Tribunal. 6. On 31.10.1998, when the first respondent / claimant travelled in the bike as a pillion-rider, he met with a tragic accident. He sustained multiple grievous injuries. His left leg below the knee was amputated. There was compound fracture also in his other leg. He had suffered injuries on his left hand (See Ex.P2 Wound Certificate). He had undergone surgical treatment. He was hospitalised for nearly 2 years. He suffered heavily. He has become a physically handicapped. Now, he cannot function as before. In the circumstances, his disability has been fixed at 75% by the Doctor (See Ex.P40 disability certificate). This disability determination has not been disputed. 7. Based on his school certificate (Ex.P5), his then age was determined at 37. He studied in Yercaud Anglo Indian School, he passed B.E.( Civil) (See Ex.P6). 8. He has been a partner in a firm (See Ex.P12 Partnership Deed) and earned considerably by way of his share of income from the partnership firm. Ex.P10, Auditor's Report, Ex.P9, I.T.Chellan, Exs.P11 and P39 substantiates his income. He has land holdings (See Exs.P13 and P14 documents) and was in receipt of agricultural income. Now that he has almost become a wreck, he cannot contribute physically and mentally to business and to agricultural operations. Ex.P10, Auditor's Report, Ex.P9, I.T.Chellan, Exs.P11 and P39 substantiates his income. He has land holdings (See Exs.P13 and P14 documents) and was in receipt of agricultural income. Now that he has almost become a wreck, he cannot contribute physically and mentally to business and to agricultural operations. His family life is lost. He lost his happiness and comforts of life. There is loss of amenities of life to him. Because of the accident, he has been rendered a misfit for a fruitful life and career. 9. The Tribunal referring to the documents relating to I.T. Department and the Auditor's Report, assessed his yearly business and agricultural income at Rs.2,00,000/-and multiplied it by 15, thus, arrived at Rs.30,00,000/-. However, deducted 1/3rd from it, probably, towards his pleasure and other expenses. Ultimately, fixed Rs.20,00,000/-towards loss of his earning capacity. Such 1/3rd deduction ought not have been made in injury cases. Further, considering his physical disability, the Tribunal awarded him Rs.13,00,000/- as disability compensation. 10. Loss of earning capacity and physical disability are not synonymous. Both are different heads. In appropriate cases, each item should be compensated separately, as that alone will give him just compensation. 11. He had suffered amputation. His other leg also has not been spared in the road accident. He is under constant treatment. Practically, the claimant, a B.E., (Civil) graduate has become a wreck. He cannot walk as before; he cannot sit as before or function as before. There is colossal loss to his body. In the circumstances, the Tribunal rightly awarded him compensation for his such disability. 12. The medical bill amount is Rs.3,48,488/-. Under this head, Rs.5,00,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal. It is for reimbursement of medical expenses and also for his continuous treatment. So, it cannot be faulted. 13. As regards other items of compensation viz., Transportation charges, pain and suffering, Nutritious food expenses and attendant charges, reasonable amounts have been granted. 14. On the whole, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive, but fair, reasonable and equitable. 15. The Tribunal awarded 9% interest per annum. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that it is excessive. 16. Considering the market lending rate, high inflation and spiraling prices of even essential commodities, 9% interest per annum is not excessive, but, reasonable. 17. In the result, this Appeal is dismissed. 15. The Tribunal awarded 9% interest per annum. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that it is excessive. 16. Considering the market lending rate, high inflation and spiraling prices of even essential commodities, 9% interest per annum is not excessive, but, reasonable. 17. In the result, this Appeal is dismissed. The Award of the Tribunal is upheld. No costs. The 1st respondent is permitted to withdraw the deposited amount, less amount, if any already withdrawn, by making appropriate application before the Tribunal.