Judgment : R. Subbiah, J. 1. Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Principal Sub. Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Virudhachalam, by order dated 23.12.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.49 of 2008, the present appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation. 2. The claim petition was filed by the injured victim C.Shanthi, represented by her husband Paramasivam, claiming a sum of Rs.70,00,000/-as compensation for the disability suffered by her in the road accident that had occurred on 29.8.2007 involving the bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation. 3. It is the case of the respondent / claimant before the Tribunal that on 29.8.2007 at about 9.30 a.m., while she was riding a motor cycle from her residence to Pasikulam Village, the bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her, due to which she sustained severe injuries all over the body. On account of the disability caused to her pursuant to the accident, she has become totally immobilised and for the rest of her life, she cannot carry on her avocation, who was a Secondary Grade Teacher by profession. Hence, she has filed the claim petition through her husband, claiming a sum of Rs.70,00,000/-as compensation. 4. Resisting the claim petition, the Transport Corporation has filed a counter affidavit denying the age, occupation and income of the victim and also the injuries sustained by her. It was also stated that the driver of the bus was not responsible for the accident and therefore, the Transport Corporation is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. In order to prove the claim, on the side of the claimant, her husband Paramasivam examined himself as P.W.1, besides examining three other witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 4 and marked 20 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.20. On the side of the Transport Corporation, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1, but no document was produced. 6. The Tribunal after analysing the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, has come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Transport Corporation. Coming to such a conclusion, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.44,24,554/- as against the claim of Rs.70,00,000/-. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation, the Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 7. Coming to such a conclusion, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.44,24,554/- as against the claim of Rs.70,00,000/-. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation, the Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 7. Since the present appeal has been filed only questioning the quantum of compensation, there is no need for this Court to deal with the other aspects of the award. 8. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Transport Corporation that in order to prove the income earned by the victim, her salary certificate was marked as Ex.P.11. A perusal of Ex.P.11 would show that the monthly income of the injured victim was Rs.9,543/-. But, the Tribunal by fixing a sum of Rs.18,262/-as monthly income, has made the calculation by applying the multiplier of 16, which resulted in awarding a sum of Rs.35,06,304/- under the head of loss of income. 9. With regard to the calculation made by the Tribunal, learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation submitted that when the salary certificate viz., Ex.P.11 shows the monthly income of the victim as Rs.9,543/-, the Tribunal ought to have made the calculation only based on the said amount, not fixing any higher sum as monthly income. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal by taking note of the recommendation of the VI Pay Commission as well as the future increment in salary, had fixed a sum of Rs.18,262/-as monthly income and as such, there is no infirmity in the calculation made by the Tribunal by fixing a sum of Rs.18,262/- as monthly income. That apart, the learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any adequate compensation under the other heads and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the award amount. 11. Keeping the submission made by either side, we have carefully gone through the materials available on record. 12. Due to the accident, the injured victim / claimant had sustained severe injuries all over the body. The evidence on record would show that now she has become immobilised and she is being fed through the tube and she is excreting urine and motion only through the tube and she is in coma stage. 12. Due to the accident, the injured victim / claimant had sustained severe injuries all over the body. The evidence on record would show that now she has become immobilised and she is being fed through the tube and she is excreting urine and motion only through the tube and she is in coma stage. On the date of accident, she was working as Secondary Grade Teacher and earning a sum of Rs.9,543/- per month which is evident from Ex.P.11. Considering the nature of injuries and also the consequential disability suffered by her, we are of the opinion that the injured victim has to survive the rest of her life only in bed. It is apparent that the injured victim cannot do any avocation for the rest of her life. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the method of calculation made by the Tribunal to arrive at the compensation under the head of loss of income. But, at the same time, we find that while making calculation under the head of loss of income, the Tribunal has fixed a sum of Rs.18,262/-as monthly income based on the VI Pay Commission recommendations and also calculating the future increment in her salary. In our considered opinion, a sum of Rs.18,262/- fixed by the Tribunal as monthly income of the injured victim is not correct, since no tangible evidence was produced before the Court with regard to the future increment in her salary. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the amount awarded under the head of loss of income needs appropriate modification. 13. As per Ex.P.11, the monthly income of the deceased was only Rs.9,543/-. As per the dictum laid down in 2009 ACJ 1298 in the case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, the injured victim is entitled to another 50% of the amount towards future prospects. 50% on the monthly income of Rs.9,543/- works out to Rs.4,777/-. If Rs.4,777/- is added to the monthly income of Rs.9,543/-, the total amount works out to Rs.14,320/-, which can be safely fixed as loss of monthly income. The injured victim was aged about 35 years at the time of accident. Hence, the correct multiplier that has to be applied in this case is 15. If Rs.4,777/- is added to the monthly income of Rs.9,543/-, the total amount works out to Rs.14,320/-, which can be safely fixed as loss of monthly income. The injured victim was aged about 35 years at the time of accident. Hence, the correct multiplier that has to be applied in this case is 15. If multiplier 15 is applied, the total amount works out to Rs.25,77,600/- (Rs.14,320/- X 12 X 15 = Rs.25,77,600/-), which amount could be awarded as just and proper compensation under the head of loss of earning. 14. In view of the discussions made above, the total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of Loss of earnings namely, Rs.35,06,304/- is hereby reduced to Rs.25,77,600/-. Except this modification, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads remains unaltered. Thus, the total compensation of Rs.44,24,554/- is hereby reduced to Rs.34,95,850/- as under:- Amount Anount awarded by now Heading the Tribunal awarded Rs. Rs. Loss of earning 35,06,304/- 25,77,600/- Pain and suffering 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/- Medical Expenses 5,68,250/- 5,68,250/- Transport expenses 25,000/- 25,000/- Attender Charges 2,00,000/- 2,00,000/- Extra nourishment 25,000/- 25,000/- Total 44,24,554/- 34,95,850 15. With the above modification, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. 16. The appellant Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the balance amount after deducting the amount that has already been deposited by them with proportionate interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the injured victim / claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with proportionate interest. Connected M.P is closed.