JUDGMENT : 1. The 1st respondent herein/claimant has filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1516 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court), Namakkal, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the Mini lorry bearing Registration No.TN20-W-2703, for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident. It was submitted that on 09.01.2003, at about 9.15 p.m., when the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider on the TVS 50 motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-28-C-6390, on the Salem Main Road, the 1st respondent's lorry bearing Registration No.TN-20-W-2703, coming on the same direction and driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant. As a result, he sustained multiple fractures. Hence, the claimant has filed the said claim. 2. The Insurance Company has filed a counter statement and denied the averments in the claim that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent's vehicle driver. It was submitted that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid driving licence. It was submitted that the alleged accident had not only been caused by the driver of the Mini lorry alone and that the rider of the motorcycle was also equally responsible. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the claimant, nature of injuries and medical treatment was also not admitted. 3. On verifying the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Whether the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle? and (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation and from whom is he entitled to get it? 4. On the side of the claimant, two witnesses were examined including the claimant and 10 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P10 namely, Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-Wound Certificate; Ex.P3-Motor Vehicle Inspector's report; Ex.P4-Charge sheet; Ex.P5-Judgment copy; Ex.P6-Rough sketch; Ex.P7-Medical bills; Ex.P8-Medical discharge summary; Ex.P9-Disability certificate and Ex.P10-X-ray. On the side of the respondents', no witness was examined and no document was marked. On the side of the respondents', no witness was examined and no document was marked. PW1, had adduced evidence that on 09.01.2003, at about 9.15 p.m., when he was travelling as pillion rider on the TVS 50 motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-28-C-6391, ridden by one Arumugam and while the vehicle was proceeding on the Salem Main Road, the 1st respondent's Mini lorry bearing Registration No.TN-20-W-2703, coming on the same direction and driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed behind the TVS 50. As a result, the rider and pillion rider of the motorcycle were thrown out and had sustained injuries. PW1 further stated that he had been admitted at Aravind Hospital, Namakkal and he had been treated as an inpatient for a period of 35 days and 4 days on two occasions. He deposed that a surgical operation had been conducted during treatment and steel plate with screws were fixed in the operated area. He had spent a sum of Rs.35,698/-towards medical expenses. After the accident, the fractured bone has not been set right. PW1 further stated that he was employed at a private concern and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. 5. PW2, Doctor had adduced evidence that the claimant's fractured bone on his left thigh was malunited and a nailing surgical operation has been conducted. The Doctor had assessed the disability at 33%. On considering the evidence of the witnesses, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,81,318/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Against the said award and decree, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. The highly competent counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the Tribunal had adopted multiplier method and awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.2,35,620/-which is on the higher side. Further, the Doctor had assessed the disability at 33% which is also on the higher side. Actually, in the said case, two vehicles had been involved and as such contributory negligence has to be attributed to the drivers of both the vehicles. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 6. The very competent counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant had been hospitalised on two occasions for a period of 35 days and 4 days respectively for operation and re-operation. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 6. The very competent counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant had been hospitalised on two occasions for a period of 35 days and 4 days respectively for operation and re-operation. It was submitted that one more operation has to be performed for removing the steel plates with screws fixed in the operated area. The Doctor had assessed the disability at 33%. The fractured bone of the thigh in his left leg had been malunited and interlocking and nailing operations had been performed on the claimant's thigh. The claimant had spent a sum of Rs.35,698/-towards medical expenses. 7. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. This Court is of the further view that the offending vehicle driver had admitted his guilt and paid the fine. It is evident that the claimant had undergone medical treatment on two occasions for about 35 days and 4 days and had spent a sum of Rs.35,698/-towards medical expenses. Therefore, the quantum of compensation granted is appropriate in the instant case. However, the Tribunal had adopted multiplier method and awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.2,35,620/-towards loss of earning which is not proper in the instant case. Therefore, this Court restructures the compensation as follows: Rs.66,000/- towards disability; Rs.15,000/-towards pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/- towards transport; Rs.10,000/-towards nutrition; Rs.10,000/- towards attender charges; Rs.15,000/-towards loss of earning during medical treatment period; Rs.50,000/-for future medical expenses for removing the steel plates with screws fixed in the operated area; Rs.35,698/- towards medical expenses; and Rs.69,620/-towards loss of amenities and loss of comfort due to fractured bones being malunited. As such the quantum of award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. 8. As per records, it is seen that this Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest. 9. As such the quantum of award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. 8. As per records, it is seen that this Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest. 9. Now, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1516 of 2004, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court), Namakkal, after filing a memo/short notes, along with a copy of this order, subject to deduction of withdrawals made, if any, by the claimant. 10. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.1516 of 2004, dated 19.09.2008, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court), Namakkal, is confirmed. No costs.