JUDGMENT : S. Manikumar, J. Being aggrieved by the award of Rs. 5,28,061 with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum awarded in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 4030 of 2002 dated 19.7.2007, the insurance company has preferred C.M.A. No. 345 of 2008. Being not satisfied with quantum of compensation, the injured has filed C.M.A; No. 1621 of 2008 for enhancement of compensation. As both the appeals arise out of the same award in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 4030 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Court of Small Causes), Chennai, they are disposed of by a common judgment. Parties are addressed as per their litigative status before the Claims Tribunal. 2. Facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as follows : On 12/13.1.2001 at about 0030 hours, when the claimant was standing on the western side of the Triplicane High Road, in front of Ratna Cafe Hotel along with his brother-in-law, an autorickshaw bearing registration No. TN 07-Z 8083, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant resulting in grievous injuries to him. According to the claimant, he sustained Grade III B supra-condylar fracture of right femur, compound comminuted fracture of right thigh, severe injury on the right side of the face and other multiple injuries over the body. A case in Crime No. 269/T2/2001 has been registered on the file of the Traffic Investigation Department, Anna Square, Chennai against the autorickshaw driver. 3. According to claimant, at the time of accident he was aged 49 years and working as a Deputy Sales Manager in GUM (India) Ltd., Chennai and earned Rs. 15,050 p.m. inclusive of all perks. It is his further contention that he was treated as inpatient in Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai from 13.1.2001 to 12.3.2001. Again, he was treated as inpatient from 30.3.2001 to 21.5.2001. As the injury did not heal, he was once again admitted as inpatient in Government Royapettah Hospital from 28.11.2001 to 16.3.2002. Though he had undergone treatment at different spells yet the wound did not heal and he was hospitalised between 22.5.2002 and 24.6.2002. According to him, he has become permanently disabled. He has claimed a compensation of Rs. 20,00,000. 4. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Chennai has denied the manner of the accident. They have also denied the contentions that the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalised. According to him, he has become permanently disabled. He has claimed a compensation of Rs. 20,00,000. 4. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Chennai has denied the manner of the accident. They have also denied the contentions that the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalised. The insurance company also submitted that the owner of the autorickshaw bearing registration No. TN 07-Z 8083 had not intimated the insurance company about the involvement of the vehicle in the road accident. They put the claimant to prove the manner of the accident. They disputed the liability to pay the compensation. Without prejudice to the above, they have also disputed the quantum of compensation claimed under various heads. For the reasons stated supra, they preferred dismissal of the claim petition. 5. On the above pleadings, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has framed the following points for consideration : (i) Whether the claimant sustained injury in the road accident occurred on 12/13.1.2001 involving the autorickshaw bearing registration No. TN 07-Z 8083 driven by its driver? (ii) Whether the autorickshaw bearing registration No. TN 07-Z 8083 was insured with the respondent No. 2? (iii) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? (iv) To what relief the claimant is entitled? 6. Before Claims Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as PW 1 and reiterated the manner of the accident. Dr. Saichandran, who issued the disability certificate, has been examined as PW 2. One V.P. Sivara-man (Head Constable) has been examined as PW 3. One Sivasubramaniam (employer) has been examined as PW 4. Exh. PI, discharge summary; Exh. P2, photo and negative; Exh. P3, series of medical bills; Exh. P4, series of transportation bills; Exh. P5, degree certificate (photocopy); Exh. P6, physically handicapped certificate (photocopy); Exh. P7, appointment order copy; Exh. P8, PAN card (photocopy); Exh. P9. disability certificate; Exh. PI0, X-ray; Exh. PI 1, copy of F.I.R.; Exh. PI2, copy of rough sketch; Exh. PI 3, charge-sheet; Exh. PI4, identity card of PW 4; Exh. PI 5, Memorandum of Articles of the company; Exh. PI 6, pay certificate; Exh. PI7, income tax particulars (Form 16); Exh. PI 8, termination letter dated 5.6.2001; Exh. PI9, High Court order copy, have been marked. The insurance company did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. 7. PI 3, charge-sheet; Exh. PI4, identity card of PW 4; Exh. PI 5, Memorandum of Articles of the company; Exh. PI 6, pay certificate; Exh. PI7, income tax particulars (Form 16); Exh. PI 8, termination letter dated 5.6.2001; Exh. PI9, High Court order copy, have been marked. The insurance company did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. 7. Upon evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai held that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw by its driver, and the vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and considering the heads of claim, the Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,28,061 with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of petition, i.e., 15.7.2002 till the date of payment as hereunder :- Permanent disability Rs. 60,000 Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000 Mental agony Rs. 25,000 Medical expenses Rs. 19,841 Nursing charges Rs. 20,000 Transport to hospital Rs. 28,220 Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000 Loss of earnings Rs. 90,000 Loss of earning power Rs. 2,50,000 Total Rs. 5,28,061 8. Assailing the correctness of the award, the insurance company has filed C.M.A. No. 345 of 2008. Mr. S. Arunkumar, the learned counsel for the insurance company, submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.19,841 towards medical expenses as per Exh.P3 series of medical bills, when the same was not supported by any medical prescription. He also submitted that a sum of Rs.20,000 was erroneously awarded towards nursing charges in the absence of any evidence. The insurance company has also challenged the award of Rs. 28,220 towards transportation charges, awarded by the Claims Tribunal on the basis of Exh. P4, series of transportation bills and the award under the said head is assailed on the ground that the author of the series has not been examined. Learned counsel for the insurance company also submitted that when the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000 towards permanent disability, a further compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 for loss of earning power is against the Full Bench decision of this court in Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. Ahmed Thamhi, 2006 ACJ 2703 (Madras). The award of Rs.90,000 for loss of earnings on the basis of Exh. PI 8, termination letter, is also put to challenge. 9. 60,000 towards permanent disability, a further compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 for loss of earning power is against the Full Bench decision of this court in Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. Ahmed Thamhi, 2006 ACJ 2703 (Madras). The award of Rs.90,000 for loss of earnings on the basis of Exh. PI 8, termination letter, is also put to challenge. 9. Per contra, inviting the attention of this court to the nature of injuries and the oral testimony of PW 4, employer, Mr. Um. Ravichandran, learned counsel for the claimant, submitted that when sufficient evidence has been adduced to prove that the claimant was terminated from service, the award towards loss of future income cannot be said to be erroneous. Placing reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. Kothandapani v. Tamil, Nadu State Trans. Corpn. Ltd., 2011 ACJ 1971 (SC), learned counsel for the claimant submitted that there is no bar under the Motor Vehicles Act to award compensation for permanent disability in addition to the amount awarded under loss of earning capacity. 10. Inviting the attention of this court to the different spells of hospitalisation and the expenditure incurred for the purchase of medicines, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the award requires enhancement. He also submitted that when the Claims Tribunal has arrived at the income of the claimant at Rs. 14,340 p.m., the Claims Tribunal ought to have considered that the claimant has lost his earnings during the period of treatment and that, therefore, ought to have awarded a higher compensation under the head loss of earnings during the period of treatment. According to him, the Claims Tribunal has failed to consider that the claimant had undergone six operations and even then, the fractured bones did not heal properly resulting in limping. Learned counsel for the claimant further submitted that compensation of Rs. 25,000 awarded for pain and suffering is inadequate, considering the nature of injuries, surgeries undergone and long period of treatment. It is also his contention that the Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded adequate compensation under the head loss of amenities in life. 11. As regards loss of future earning power, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that when the employer has been examined to support the termination, resulting in loss of future earnings, the Claims Tribunal ought to have applied appropriate multiplier to award suitable compensation. 11. As regards loss of future earning power, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that when the employer has been examined to support the termination, resulting in loss of future earnings, the Claims Tribunal ought to have applied appropriate multiplier to award suitable compensation. For the above said reasons, he filed C.M.A. No. 1621 of 2008 and consequently prayed for suitable enhancement. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 13. As both the appeals pertain to the quantum of compensation, there is no need to address the issue relating to the manner of accident and liability of the insurance company to pay compensation. As per Exh. PI, discharge summary, the claimant was aged 49 years at the time of accident. Regarding his income, the claimant has contended that he was the Deputy Sales Manager in GUM (India) Limited, Chennai and earned Rs. 15,050 p.m. He has adduced oral evidence. To prove his educational qualifications, employment and income, the claimant has produced Exh. P5, degree certificate, Exh. P7, order of appointment, Exh. P8, photocopy of PAN card. To lend support, he has also examined one Siva-subramaniam, his employer, as PW 4. PW 4 has deposed that at the time of accident, he was working as Accounts Manager in the above company. He has produced Exh. P14, identity card. To prove that the company is registered under the Act, Exh. PI5, Memorandum of Articles of the company, has been produced. He has adduced oral evidence that at the time of accident, the claimant was working as a Deputy Sales Manager in GUM (India) Limited, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Kottivakkam, Chennai and earned Rs. 15,300 p.m. Exh. P16, pay certificate, has been produced. Upon perusal of Exh. PI6, the Tribunal has noticed that claimant had drawn Rs. 14,340 p.m. as net income during December 2000. As New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has not raised any substantial dispute regarding income, the Claims Tribunal has fixed Rs. 14,340 as his monthly income. Injuries stated to have been sustained by the claimant are Grade III B supra-condylar fracture of right femur, compound comminuted fracture of right thigh, severe injury on the right side of face and other multiple injuries over the body. Upon perusal of Exh. PI, discharge summary and other reports, such as Exh. P2, photo and negative series, Exh. Injuries stated to have been sustained by the claimant are Grade III B supra-condylar fracture of right femur, compound comminuted fracture of right thigh, severe injury on the right side of face and other multiple injuries over the body. Upon perusal of Exh. PI, discharge summary and other reports, such as Exh. P2, photo and negative series, Exh. P3, medical bill series, the Claims Tribunal has observed that the claimant has sustained serious injuries and that immediately after the accident, he was taken to Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai and treated as inpatient for 2 months. During this period, he has undergone surgery and thereafter, he has been hospitalised as inpatient from 30.3.2001 to 21.5.2001 for 50 days. During this period, rods and rings were fixed. Once again he has been treated as inpatient from 8.10.2011 to 12.10.2011. By surgical process, ring has been removed. Thereafter, he was hospitalised between 28.11.2001 and 16.3.2002 and during this period, claimant had undergone another surgery, and nails have been affixed inside the bones. As the wound did not heal, once again he has been treated as inpatient between 22.5.2002 and 24.6.2002 and during this period, rods have been removed and POP had been applied. Thereafter, he had taken treatment as inpatient for three days. 14. PW 2, Dr. N. Saichandran, who clinically examined the claimant with reference to the medical records, has deposed that injuries were grievous in nature and he has reiterated the treatment undergone by the claimant. Upon chemical examination, he also noticed that pus had formed in muscles and bones and that there was restriction in the knee joint. As per his opinion, the right thigh bone was reduced by three degrees. Claimant was limping. He has also deposed that the claimant was using a walking stick. According to him, claimant would find difficult to sit, squat and to do normal work. He has assessed the disability at 65 per cent and issued Exh. P9, disability certificate. To prove that the claimant has become permanently disabled, he has also produced Exh. P6, physically handicapped certificate. It shows the nature of injuries, the period of treatment in different spells and surgeries undergone. The claimant would support his case that the injuries stated supra were grievous in nature and that the award of Rs. 25,000 for pain and suffering is inadequate. P6, physically handicapped certificate. It shows the nature of injuries, the period of treatment in different spells and surgeries undergone. The claimant would support his case that the injuries stated supra were grievous in nature and that the award of Rs. 25,000 for pain and suffering is inadequate. As stated supra, the claimant has been periodically admitted in Royapettah Hospital at different spells, i.e., 13.1.2001 to 12.3.2001, 30.3.2001 to 21.5.2001, 8.10.2001 to 12.10.2001, 28.11.2001 to 16.3.2002, 22.5.2002 to 24.6.2002 As stated supra, that every time the claimant was admitted in the hospital, he had undergone surgeries. Grade III B supra-condylar fracture of right femur, compound comminuted fracture of right thigh are grievous injuries. The very fact that the claimant had been treated as inpatient at different spells in Government hospital proves his case that the surgical process undergone by him did not give him the desired result and that, therefore, repeated surgeries have been performed with long number of days of hospitalisation. Claimant would have experienced pain and suffering at the time of accident, during and after the surgeries and convalescence. In the light of the above discussion, this court is inclined to award a sum of Rs. 60,000 towards pain and suffering. 15. Loss of earnings during the period of treatment is certainly one of the facts to be considered. Though claimant has sought for compensation under this head for 15 months, at the rate of Rs. 14,340 p.m., and on the contra, the insurance company has sought for reduction of compensation from Rs. 90,000, this court is of the view that considering the nature of injuries and the period of treatment, the claimant would have been immobilised for a long period and as per Second Schedule, section 63-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the injured is entitled to claim compensation under the head loss of earnings for the actual period of disablement, not exceeding 52 weeks, in addition to the loss of earnings, which shall be arrived at the annual loss of income by the multiplier applicable with the age on the date of determining the compensation. However, in the case on hand, the claim, has been made under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. For nearly 81/2 months the claimant had been hospitalised. However, in the case on hand, the claim, has been made under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. For nearly 81/2 months the claimant had been hospitalised. Considering the nature of injuries, it could be reasonably presumed that he would have been advised bed rest and immobilisation, as the last treatment period 22.5.2002 to 24.6.2002 indicates that, after the rods were removed, POP was applied. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, this court is inclined to compute the compensation, under the head loss of earnings for one year, at the rate of Rs. 14,340 p.m. which works out to Rs. 1,72,080. 16. PW 2, doctor, has assessed the disability at 65 per cent whereas the Claims Tribunal has reduced the same to 60 per cent and awarded Rs. 60,000. That apart, during clinical examination, PW 2, doctor, has noticed that the claimant was limping and was also using a walking stick. Exh. P6 is the photocopy of the physically handicapped certificate. The claimant was aged 49 years at the time of the accident. Thus, considering the nature of injuries, disablement, convalescence, compensation of Rs. 60,000 awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards permanent disability is sustained. An award of Rs. 25,000 under the head mental agony is liable to be deducted, as pain and suffering includes agony. Though PW I, the claimant, has deposed that he had incurred Rs. 40,000 towards nursing charges and also engaged an assistant for two years, with a pay of Rs. 2,000 per month, he has not examined anybody. Nevertheless, the mere fact that the claimant was hospitalised at different spells would prove that he needed an attendant. Rs. 20,000 awarded under the head nursing charges is just and reasonable and this court is not inclined to subscribe to the contentions of either side, either for reduction or enhancement. 17. It is the case of the insurance company that the Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding double compensation, both under the heads of disability and future loss of earning power and that, therefore, sought for reduction in terms of the Full Bench decision of this court in Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. Ahmed Thambi, 2006 ACJ 2703 (Madras), wherein it is the case of the claimant that as per the decision in B. Kothandapani v. Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn. Corpn. Ltd., 2011 ACJ 1971 (SC), claimant is entitled to an award under permanent disability, in addition to loss of earning capacity. In B. Kothanda-pani's case (supra), the injured-claimant, a foreman in hydraulic company, suffered multiple injuries, his middle finger of the right hand was amputated, there was partial loss of eyesight in the left eye and that the disability certificates, Exhs. P9 and P10, were issued by two doctors to the extent of 90 per cent. However, the Tribunal granted Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation towards permanent disability, in addition to the award towards loss of earnings. When the correctness of the award was tested, this court relying on Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. Ahmed Thambi, 2006 ACJ 2703 (Madras), disallowed Rs. 1,00,000 from the total compensation. However, when the decision of the High Court was tested, the Apex Court taking note of the injuries, the nature of job and the extent of disability, at para 12 held as follows : "(12) It is true that the compensation for loss of earning power/capacity has to be determined based on various aspects including permanent injury/disability. At the same time, it cannot be construed that compensation cannot be granted for permanent disability of any nature. For example, take the case of a non-earning member of a family, who has been injured in an accident and sustained permanent disability due to amputation of leg or hand, it cannot be construed that no amount needs to be granted for permanent disability. It cannot be disputed that apart from the fact that permanent disability affects the earning capacity of the person concerned, undoubtedly, one has to forgo other personal comforts and even for normal avocation they have to depend on others. In the case on hand, two doctors had explained the nature of injuries, treatment received and the disability suffered due to partial loss of eyesight and amputation of middle finger of the right hand and we have already adverted to the avocation, namely, at the time of accident, he was working as a foreman in Armstrong Hydraulics Ltd. Taking note of his nature of work, partial loss in the eyesight, loss of middle finger of the right hand, it not only affects his earning capacity but also affects normal avocation and day-to-day work. In such circumstance, we are of the view that the Tribunal was fully justified in granting a sum of Rs. In such circumstance, we are of the view that the Tribunal was fully justified in granting a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 towards permanent disability." Pursuant to the above said decision of the Supreme Court in B. Kothandapani's case (supra), there is no need to fasten any condition that either the Claims Tribunal or the High Court can restrict its powers in granting an award, under both heads, viz., loss of future earning capacity and permanent disablement. Depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal or the High Court can award compensation, under both the heads, having regard to the nature or extent of disablement, loss of earning capacity in future. Therefore, while considering the case of the insurance company that the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation under both the heads, on the facts and circumstances of this case, this court is not inclined to accept the case of the insurance company that permanent disablement has not reduced the extent of future earnings. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the claimant, when the Claims Tribunal has arrived at the monthly income of the injured at Rs. 14,340, the Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded appropriate compensation by adopting the multiplier method, by taking note of the age of the injured. The multiplier that may be applicable to the age group of 45-50 years is 13. In the recent judgments of the Supreme Court, it has held that there need not be any deduction while computing the loss of future income in the case of a permanently disabled accident victim. 18. Though the learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the Claims Tribunal has erred in computing the loss of future earnings, solely on the basis of the letter of termination, Exh. PI 8, this court is not inclined to accept the same. On the contrary, the claimant has adduced both oral and documentary evidence to prove that after the accident, he did not work for a long time and that PW 4, Accounts Manager of the company, has clearly deposed that under Exh. PI8, the services of the claimant had been terminated. On the contrary, the claimant has adduced both oral and documentary evidence to prove that after the accident, he did not work for a long time and that PW 4, Accounts Manager of the company, has clearly deposed that under Exh. PI8, the services of the claimant had been terminated. At this juncture, it is also to be noticed that, at the time of accident, the claimant was Deputy Sales Manager and needless to state that a person engaged in sales has to travel to many places and no private employer would like to retain a disabled person in the company, which would affect the business interest. Therefore, when the oral testimony of the claimant and the particular supportive evidence of PW 4, Accounts Manager, remains un-shattered, it cannot be said that the Claims Tribunal has committed any serious error in placing reliance on Exh. PI8. Multiplier 13 can be applied for computing the loss of future income/contribution to the family in the case of death. However, taking note of Exh. P5, degree certificate, Exh. P7, appointment order, proof of educational qualification, testimony of PW 4 that the claimant had worked in a limited company for nearly 15 years, though Exh. PI 8 shows that the claimant was terminated, this court is of the view that, at the age of 49 and having served the company for quite sometime, the claimant would not remain idle for the rest of his lifetime and he has to support a family and in the above said circumstances, if suppose applying a lesser multiplier for computing the loss of future earnings, it works out to Rs. 14,340 x 12 x 10 = Rs. 17,20,800. However, the claim in this appeal is restricted only to Rs. 9,00,000 in addition to a sum of Rs. 5,28,061, awarded by the Tribunal. 19. Loss of amenities as per Full Bench decision of this court in Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. Ahmed Thambi, 2006 ACJ 2703 (Madras), is as follows : "Deprivation of the ordinary experiences and enjoyment of life and includes loss of the ability to walk or see, loss of a limb or its use, loss of congenial employment, loss of pride and pleasure in ones work, loss of marriage prospects and loss of sexual function." 20. Disability and consequential loss of deprivation in working, standing and other enjoyment of life is per se apparent on the face of record, that the claimant, who was seriously injured, was limping and using a walking stick, during the clinical examination of PW 2. As stated supra, repeated surgeries have not given the desired results to the claimant. Hence, this court is of the view that a sum of Rs. 25,000 can be awarded under the head loss of amenities. Rs. 19,841 awarded under the head medical expenses cannot be said to be exorbitant. Though the claimant had taken treatment in Government hospital, considering the nature of injuries and his employment as a Deputy Sales Manager in a limited company, one can expect that the injured would have incurred expenses in purchasing medicines and the only objection to the award under the head medical expenses is that, it is not supported by any prescription. Considering the long duration of treatment, from January 2001 to June 2002, it could be reasonably presumed that incurring medical expenses is inevitable and, therefore, award of Rs.19,841 under the head medical expenses is sustained. Transportation expense of Rs.28,220 is not fully supported by Exh.P4 series. Hence, it is reduced to Rs.15,000 under this head. Considering the nature of injuries, the claimant would have required special diet for speedy recovery. Hence, awarding a sum of Rs. 10,000 towards extra nourishment is sustained. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to an enhanced compensation as follows : Permanent disability Rs.60,000 Pain and suffering Rs.60,000 Loss of amenities Rs.25,000 Medical expenses Rs.19,841 Nursing charges Rs.20,000 Transport to hospital Rs.15,000 Extra nourishment Rs.10,000 Loss of earnings during period of treatment Rs.1,72,080 Loss of earning power Rs.17,20,800 Total Rs.21,02,721 21. However, since claimant has restricted his appeal to a sum of Rs. 20,00,000, the insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,00,000 with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of claim till the date of deposit, less already deposited if any, to the credit of M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 4030 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Court of Small Causes), Chennai, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same, by making necessary applications. 22. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same, by making necessary applications. 22. In the result, the appeal in C.M.A. No. 1621 of 2008 filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation is allowed. The appeal in C.M.A. No. 345 of 2008 filed by insurance company for reduction of compensation is dismissed. No costs.