Judgment : R. Banumathi, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.14,31,100/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal (Fast Track Court No.3), Virudhachalam for the injuries sustained by the 1st Respondent-Claimant in a road traffic accident on 08.7.2002, Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts are that on 08.7.2002 at 9.00 P.M., when the 1st Respondent – Liakath Ali and one Mohamed Gani were standing at the left side of Oomangalam main road, a tipper lorry bearing registration No.TN-69 B 4750 belonging to the 2nd Respondent without closing the back door was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and the back door of the said tipper lorry dashed against the 1st Respondent's forehead and also Mohamed Gani, who was walking along with him. Due to the hit, 1st Respondent sustained grievous injuries on his forehead and fell down and went to coma stage. Immediately, after the accident, the 1st Respondent was admitted in Government Hospital, Virudhachalam, where from he was sent to Government Hospital, Cuddalore. Since the 1st Respondent was in coma stage, he was referred to Apollo Hospital, Chennai, where the 1st Respondent was treated for about one and half month and thereafter, he was admitted in Rajah Muthiah Medical College Hospital, Annamalai Nagar, where he had taken treatment for one month. Since the 1st Respondent was not recovered from coma stage, he was admitted in C.R. Hospital for further treatment. Regarding the accident, a Criminal case was registered against the driver of the tipper lorry in Crime No.151 of 2002 under Sections 279,337 and 338 I.P.C. on the file of Oomangalam Police Station. At the time of accident, the 1st Respondent was doing Rice Mill business and was earning Rs.15,000/-per month. Stating that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the tipper lorry driver and that 1st Respondent-Claimant is in coma stage, 1st Respondent-Claimant, represented by his wife Jaleefa Begum filed the Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.18,00,000/-. 3. Denying the accident, Appellant-Insurance Company has filed counter stating that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st Respondent-Claimant and that the Appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the 1st Respondent-Claimant. Appellant-Insurance Company also denied the medical expenses incurred and the percentage of disability suffered by the 1st Respondent-Claimant and that the compensation claimed by the Claimant is excessive. 4. Appellant-Insurance Company also denied the medical expenses incurred and the percentage of disability suffered by the 1st Respondent-Claimant and that the compensation claimed by the Claimant is excessive. 4. In the same accident, Mohamed Kani sustained injuries and he filed M.C.O.P.No.237 of 2004. In the Tribunal both M.C.O.P.Nos.199 of 2004 and 237 of 2004 were taken up together and joint trial was conducted. Before the Tribunal, onbehalf of the 1st Respondent-Claimant, his wife Jaleefa Begam was examined as P.W.1. Claimant in M.C.O.P.No.237 of 2004 was examined as P.W.2. Dr.Palani, who issued Ex.P43-disability certificate to 1st Respondent-Claimant was examined as P.W.3. Dr.Palani, who issued Ex.P45-disability certificate to Mohamed Kani was examined as P.W.4. Dr.Jothi Ramalingam, who treated the 1st Respondent-Claimant and and issued Exs.P47 and 48 was examined as P.W.5. Exs.P1 to 48 were marked on the side of Claimant. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the side of Appellant-Insurance Company. 5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the tipper lorry driver. Tribunal held that because of the injuries sustained, the 1st Respondent-Claimant is in coma stage and is in unconscious state and that 1st Respondent-Claimant has suffered 87% of disability. Tribunal held that before the accident, 1st Respondent-Claimant was working in abroad and was earning Rs.96,000/- per annum. Apart from working in abroad, 1st Respondent-Claimant was also doing Rice Mill business and was earning Rs.6000/-per annum, totalling Rs.1,02,000/- per annum. Taking the disability at 87% and adopting multiplier 15, Tribunal has calculated the loss of earning at Rs.13,31,100/-. Adding compensation under other heads, Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.14,31,100/- under the following heads:- Loss of earning (Rs.1,02,000 x 15 ÷ 87%) ... Rs.13,31,100.00 Medical expenses ... Rs. 90,000.00 Pain and suffering ... Rs. 5,000.00 Transport charges ... Rs. 5,000.00 Total ... Rs.14,31,100.00 Being aggrieved by the said award, Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 6. There is no serious challenge as to the manner of accident and as to who was responsible for the accident, insurance of the vehicle and fastening of liability upon the Appellant-Insurance Company. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to elaborate upon the manner of accident, the insurance of the vehicle and the liability of the Appellant Insurance Company. Only quantum is under challenge. 7. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to elaborate upon the manner of accident, the insurance of the vehicle and the liability of the Appellant Insurance Company. Only quantum is under challenge. 7. Learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that there is no medical evidence to show Claimant was incapable of acting on his own. It was submitted that Tribunal ought to have rejected the evidence of Doctors that the 1st Respondent-Claimant was suffering from 100% disability and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for 1st Respondent-Claimant submitted that consequent to the injuries sustained in the accident, 1st Respondent-Claimant is in coma stage and unable to do his normal routine. 9. Since the 1st Respondent-Claimant is in coma stage, his wife was examined as P.W.1. In her evidence, P.W.1 has stated that her husband studied M.B.A. and was working in abroad and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. Apart from working in Abroad, he was also doing Rice Mill business and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. After the accident since her husband is in coma stage, he is unable to do the Rice Mill business. 10. To prove the injuries sustained by the 1st Respondent- Claimant, 1st Respondent had produced Ex.P9 - wound certificate issued by Government Hospital, Vridhachalam. By perusal of Ex.P9, it is seen that in the accident, the 1st Respondent had sustained (i) lacerated injury in the frontal region of the forehead; (ii) contusion in the left side of the face; (iii) contusion in the upper cycled of the left eye; (iv) bleeding from both nostrils and that he has sustained grievous injuries. Ex.P11 is the discharge summary issued by Apollo Specialty Hospital, Chennai wherein it is stated that the 1st Respondent-Claimant was admitted on 9.7.2002 and discharged on 27.8.2002 and he was treated for left frontal depressed fracture with pneumocranium thin extradural haematoma, left frontal region right temporo parietal contusion, sub arachnoid haemorrhage. 11. Ex.P12 is the discharge summary issued by Annamalai Rajah Muthiah Medical College Hospital, wherein it is stated that 1st Respondent-Claimant was admitted on 27.8.2002 and discharged on 25.9.2002. On examination, the 1st Respondent-Claimant was semiconscious. 12. In his evidence, P.W.3 Dr.Palani has stated that he had examined 1st Respondent-Claimant Liakath Ali and assessed the disability at 52%. Ex.P43 is the disability certificate issued by the P.W.4. On examination, the 1st Respondent-Claimant was semiconscious. 12. In his evidence, P.W.3 Dr.Palani has stated that he had examined 1st Respondent-Claimant Liakath Ali and assessed the disability at 52%. Ex.P43 is the disability certificate issued by the P.W.4. P.W.5 is Dr.Jothi Ramalingam, Neurologist, who treated the 1st Respondent-Claimant and assessed disability at 100%. Exs.P47 and 48 are the disability certificates issued by P.W.5. Considering the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 Doctors and Exs.P43, 47 and 48 disability certificates, Tribunal held that 1st Respondent-Claimant had sustained 87% disability. Tribunal further held that though 1st Respondent-Claimant possessed various qualifications and obtained certificates, because of the injuries sustained in the accident, he is in vegetative existence. We are of the view that the disability taken by the Tribunal at 87% is based on evidence and documentary proof and the same is confirmed. 13. Insofar as the annual income taken by the Tribunal, learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the annual income taken by the Tribunal at Rs.1,02,000/- is on the higher side. Learned counsel for 1st Respondent-Claimant submitted that 1st Respondent-Claimant possessed various qualifications and obtained Diploma in Marketing Management and other courses. 14. Exs.P15 to P21 are the educational and technical qualifications certificates issued to the 1st Respondent-Claimant. Exs.P25 is the Licence issued for running the Rice Mill. Ex.P26 is the property tax issued in the name of 1st Respondent-Claimant. Exs.P27 to P30 are the certificates issued to the 1st Respondent-Claimant showing that he had worked in abroad. 15. By perusal of Ex.P15 to P24 and Exs.P26 to 30, it is seen that 1st Respondent-Claimant was qualified in various Courses and had worked in abroad. Contention of 1st Respondent-Claimant is that apart from working in abroad, 1st Respondent-Claimant was doing Rice Mill business and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. To prove that 1st Respondent-Claimant was doing Rice Mill business, 1st Respondent-Claimant had produced Ex.P25-Licence. Tribunal has taken the monthly income of 1st Respondent-Claimant by way of working in abroad as Rs.8000/- per month i.e. Rs.96,000/-per annum and Rs.500/- i.e. Rs.6000/-per annum from doing Rice Mill business, totalling Rs.1,02,000/- per annum. Considering the qualification possessed by the 1st Respondent and also avocation, we are of the view that the annual income at Rs.1,02,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is very reasonable. 16. Considering the qualification possessed by the 1st Respondent and also avocation, we are of the view that the annual income at Rs.1,02,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is very reasonable. 16. Learned counsel for 1st Respondent-Claimant submitted because of the injuries sustained, the 1st Respondent-Claimant went into coma stage and now he is not in a position to do anything and that the total compensation of Rs.14,31,100/- awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and has to be enhanced. 1st Respondent-Claimant was referred to Medical Board for examination and to assess the percentage of disability. On examination, the Medical Board in its certificate dated 18.9.2012 opined that 1st Respondent-Liyakath Ali is physically disabled. The Report of the Medical Board (18.9.2012) reads as under:- "This is to certify that Shri. Liyakath Ali, son of Mr.Jamal Md., age 51 Old male in a case of post head injury sequlae. He is physically disabled/visual disabled/speech and hearing disabled and has totally disabled (100%) permanent (Physical Impairment/Visual impairment/Speech and hearing) in relation to his day today activities." Finally the Medical Board opined as under:- 1. This condition is not likely to improve. 2. Reassessment is not recommended. 17. Referring to the Report of the Medical Board, the learned counsel for 1st Respondent-Claimant submitted that since the 1st Respondent had suffered 100% disability, the loss of earning calculated by the Tribunal at Rs.13,31,100/- is very low and prayed that the same has to be enhanced.Taking Exs.P47 and P48-disability certificates, the Tribunal has fixed the average permanent disability at 87%. It is pertinent to note that 1st Respondent-Claimant has not filed any appeal or cross-appeal for enhancement. The appeal was pending from the year 2007. The very fact that they have not filed any appeal as against the award itself would show that they are satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In the absence of any appeal or cross appeal by the 1st Respondent-Claimant substantiating for enhancement, we are not inclined to consider the contention of learned counsel for 1st Respondent that the award amount needs to be enhanced. Considering the nature of injuries and also the disabilities assessed by P.W.3 and P.W.5-Doctors, we are of the view that the percentage of disability (87%) fixed by the Tribunal deserves to be confirmed and the compensation awarded is just and reasonable. 18. At the time of accident, the Claimant was aged 45 years. Considering the nature of injuries and also the disabilities assessed by P.W.3 and P.W.5-Doctors, we are of the view that the percentage of disability (87%) fixed by the Tribunal deserves to be confirmed and the compensation awarded is just and reasonable. 18. At the time of accident, the Claimant was aged 45 years. As held by a Division Bench of this Court in UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITD VS. VELUCHAMY AND ANOTHER, ( 2005(1) CTC 38 ) and RAJ KUMAR VS. AJAY KUMAR AND ANOTHER, ( (2011) 1 SCC 343 = 2010) (2) TN MAC 581 (SC) = 2011 ACJ 1 ), in appropriate cases, where the disability resulted in functional disability, the Court can adopt multiplier method. As per Second Schedule to M.V. Act, for the age group 40-45, the proper multiplier to be adopted is "15". Taking the annual income at Rs.1,02,000/-and adopting multiplier "15", the loss of earning is calculated at Rs.13,31,100/-(Rs.1,02,000 x 15 x 87 ÷100) considering the disability of 87% suffered by the Claimant. 19. Insofar as medical expenses are concerned, Tribunal has awarded Rs.90,000/- for medical expenses. Exs.P33 to P39 are the medical bills incurred by the 1st Respondent-Claimant. Considering the nature of injuries and the period of treatment undergone by the 1st Respondent-Claimant in various hospitals in various spells, Rs.90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for medical expenses is confirmed. 20. Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for "transport to hospital" and another sum of Rs.5000/- for "pain and suffering" and the same are maintained. Thus the total compensation of Rs.14,31,100/- awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and the same is confirmed. 21. Learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company submitted that 9% interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and prayed for reduction in rate of interest. Since the accident is of the year 2002 and also the fact that 1st Claimant is totally disabled, we are not inclined to reduce the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. 22. In the result, the compensation of Rs.14,31,100/- awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.199 of 2004 dated 08.6.2005 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.3), Virudhachalam is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. 22. In the result, the compensation of Rs.14,31,100/- awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.199 of 2004 dated 08.6.2005 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.3), Virudhachalam is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. It was stated before us that as per the order in M.P.No.1 of 2007 dated 28.2.2007, Appellant-Insurance Company has deposited the entire compensation amount along with accrued interest and the 1st Respondent-Claimant was permitted to withdraw the entire conventional damages viz., medical expenses, pain and suffering, transportation and 50% of the balance award amount. The 1st Respondent-Claimant is hereby permitted to withdraw the 50% of the balance award amount along with accrued interest lying in Court deposit, immediately after the receipt of copy of this judgment. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. There is no order as to costs in this appeal.