Judgment : 1. The appellant / 2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A.No.1078 of 2009, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.396 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Coimbatore. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner, Sakthivel has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.396 of 2000, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-from the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident. It was submitted that on 31.12.1999, at about 01.45 p.m., when the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-59-B-6034, which was driven by one Sampathkumar on the Avanashi Road, from east to west from Sitra to Peelamedu and when they were nearing the Coimbatore Institute of Technology, the 1st respondent's bus bearing Registration No.TN-38-N-0778, coming in the opposite direction and driven in a rash and negligent manner, came on to the wrong side of the road while over taking another vehicle going ahead of the bus and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner and rider of the motorcycle were thrown out the vehicle. The petitioner sustained fracture in his right leg and was admitted at Kovai Medical Centre Hospital, Coimbatore and took treatment as an inpatient from 31.12.1999 to 16.02.2000. At the time of accident, the petitioner was running an Audio Cassette Recording Centre at Ganapathy in the name of S.S. Audio Club and earning a monthly income of Rs.4,000/-. Due to the permanent disability sustained by him, he could not do his work as before. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the 1st and 2ndrespondents, who are the driver and owner of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-38-N-0778. 3. The respondent, in his counter has submitted that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties namely the owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-59-B-6034, which was involved in the accident. It was submitted that the accident was not caused due to any negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and that it was caused only due to negligence of the motorcyclist. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the petitioner, nature of injuries, medical treatment was also not admitted. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the petitioner, nature of injuries, medical treatment was also not admitted. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. In the same accident, another claim has been filed by the rider of the motorcycle in M.C.O.P.No.404 of 2000, claiming compensation from the same respondents for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. On the request made by the counsel for their respective petitioners through a joint memo, joint trial was conducted and common evidence was recorded. The petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.396 of 2000 was examined as PW1, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.404 of 2000 was examined as PW2 and one Dr.Edment was examined as PW3 and 20 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P20 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R.; Ex.P2-Rough sketch; Ex.P3 & Ex.P4-Motor Vehicle Inspection report; Ex.P5-Wound certificate of PW1; Ex.P6 & Ex.P7-Discharge summary of PW1; Ex.P8-Photo with negative; Ex.P9-Medical Bills (Series); Ex.10-Wound Certificate of PW2; Ex.P11-Charge sheet; Ex.P12-Discharge summary of PW2; Ex.P13-Discharge summary of PW1; Ex.P14-series photo with negative; Ex.P15-Partnership Deed of G.S.Traders; Ex.P16-Certificate of Registration under Tamil Nadu Government Sales Tax of GS Traders; Ex.P17-Certificate of Registration under Central Sales Tax Department of GS Traders; Ex.P18-Medical Bills series; Ex.P19-Disability Certificate of PW1; and Ex.P20-Disability Certificate of PW2. On the respondents' side, one witness was examined and no document was marked. 5. PW1 and PW2 have adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made in their claim regarding manner of accident and in support of their evidence, they had marked Exhibits P1 to P20. 6. RW1, the driver of the bus had adduced evidence that in the Criminal case registered against him, he had been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.8, Coimbatore. 7. The Tribunal observed that the respondent had not produced any documents to show the acquittal of RW1 in the Criminal case. The Tribunal on scrutiny of Exhibits P1 and P11 observed that the police, after full fledged investigation had filed the charge sheet against the 1st respondent for rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal on scrutiny of Ex.P2, observed that the bus had been taken to the right side of the road and came on the path of the motorcycle. Hence, the Tribunal after scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. 8. The Tribunal on scrutiny of Ex.P2, observed that the bus had been taken to the right side of the road and came on the path of the motorcycle. Hence, the Tribunal after scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. 8. PW1 had further adduced evidence that due to the accident, he had sustained fracture of bone in his right knee and was admitted at Kovai Medical Centre Hospital and that a surgical operation was conducted. On scrutiny of Ex.P5-Wound certificate, it is seen that the petitioner had sustained fracture of bone in his right leg knee, right leg femur bone, right foot and toes. 9. PW3 Doctor had adduced evidence that due to the accident, the petitioner has sustained permanent disability in his right leg and that his right leg movements have become restricted. He deposed that the petitioner had sustained 38% disability and in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P19-Disability Certificate. 10. The Tribunal on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence awarded a sum of Rs.58,000/- for disability. The Tribunal, on holding the notional income of the petitioner as Rs.15,000/- per year and adopting a multiplier of 18, as was relevant to the age of the petitioner (29 years) awarded a sum of Rs.1,56,600/-as compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity; Rs.2,59,850/-was awarded for medical expenses as per medical bills marked as Ex.P9; Rs.25,000/-was awarded under the head of pain and suffering. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,99,450/- as compensation to the petitioner and directed the respondents to deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim till date of payment of compensation, with costs, within a period of three months from the date of its order. 11. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Coimbatore has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal failed to consider that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent riding by the motorcyclist. It was contended that the award passed under the head of disability and loss of earning capacity are erroneous. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal failed to consider that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent riding by the motorcyclist. It was contended that the award passed under the head of disability and loss of earning capacity are erroneous. It was contended that the award of Rs.2,59,850/- granted for medical expenses is also excessive. It was contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the age of the claimant based on O.P.Chits. Hence, it was prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 12. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the F.I.R. has been registered against the driver of the bus and as such, the negligence and liability had been fastened on the appellant herein. The claimant had undergone treatment as inpatient, at Kovai Medical Centre Hospital and he had spent a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards medical expenses. The Doctor had assessed the disability at 58%. The claimant's right leg had been fractured and a surgical operation was conducted. The petitioner had been hospitalised for a second time as inpatient for 9 days. In order to prove the medical claim, the claimant has filed medical bills. However, the Tribunal had not granted adequate compensation, under the relevant heads namely attender charges, nutrition and transport. 13. On verifying 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. However, the Tribunal adopted multiplier method and granted a sum of Rs.1,56,600/-towards loss of earning capacity and had again granted a sum of Rs.58,000/-for disability, which is redundant. Hence, this Court restructures the compensation as follows:- Rs.2,59,850/- is awarded for medical expenses; Rs.1,16,000/-is awarded for disability; Rs.15,000/- is awarded for pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/- for nutrition; Rs.10,000/-for attender charges; Rs.10,000/- for transport expenses; Rs.15,000/- for loss of earning during medical treatment period and Rs.63,600/-towards loss of amenities and loss of comfort. As such, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. This Court directed the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest. 14. As such, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. This Court directed the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest. 14. Now, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount with interest, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.396 of 2000, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Coimbatore, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. 15. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.396 of 2000, dated 08.04.2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Coimbatore, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.