Judgment : 1. The appellant / third respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2003, made in M.C.O.P.No.148 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Bhavani. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The claimant had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.148 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Bhavani, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the respondents, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. 3. It was submitted that on 21.05.1999, at about 10.30 p.m., when the claimant was walking on Kavundapadi-Bhavani Main Road, from west to east, keeping to the extreme left of the road, the second respondent's 'Rajdoot' bike bearing registration No.TDO 1865, which was coming behind and driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant. As a result, the claimant had sustained injuries on his face, chest, shoulder, ribs, legs and other parts of his body. He was admitted at G.H.Hospital, Erode, wherein he received treatment as an inpatient till 29.05.1999. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged 29 years and was running a mechanic shop at Kavundapady-Sathy Main Road at Kavundapadi and earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. Due to the disability in the accident, he is not able to do his work as before. Hence, the claimant had filed the claim petition against the respondents, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the bike bearing registration No.TDO 1865. 4. The third respondent Insurance Company, in their counter statement, had submitted that the accident occurred on 21.05.1999 and that FIR was lodged only on 26.05.1999. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the claimant, nature of injuries sustained, medical treatment taken, medical expenses incurred and disability was not admitted. It was submitted that the claimant should prove that the first respondent had a valid driving licence to drive the bike and that the bike was covered under a valid policy of insurance with the third respondent at the time of accident. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. It was submitted that the claimant should prove that the first respondent had a valid driving licence to drive the bike and that the bike was covered under a valid policy of insurance with the third respondent at the time of accident. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. In their additional counter, it was submitted that the claimant is the brother of second respondent and that the second respondent had colluded with the claimant in order to get wrongful gain and that the second respondent's vehicle had not been involved in the alleged accident. 5. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: i. Was the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving by the first respondent? and ii. Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum? 6. On the claimant's side, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and 11 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P11 namely copy of FIR, copy of observation mahazar, copy of rough sketch, copy of M.V.I's report, copy of wound certificate, copy of charge sheet, copy of criminal court Judgment, medical bill series, copy of R.C.Book, X'rays and disability certificate. On the respondents' side, three witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 to 3 and six documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R3 namely copy of FIR, copies of family card, copy of driving licence, copy of R.C.Book of vehicle bearing registration No.TNQ 1865 and copy of insurance policy. 7. P.W.1 the claimant had adduced evidence, which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim regarding manner of accident and in support of his evidence, he had marked Exs.P1 to P7. On scrutiny of Ex.P1, it is seen that the complaint regarding the accident had been given by one Arthanareeswaran, who is the brother of P.W.1 and that the complaint had been registered against the first respondent for rash and negligent driving. On scrutiny of Ex.P4, it is seen that the accident had not been caused due to any mechanism failure of the bike. On scrutiny of Exs.P6 and P7, it is seen that the charge sheet had been filed against the first respondent and that he had voluntarily admitted his guilt and paid the fire before the criminal Court. On scrutiny of Ex.P4, it is seen that the accident had not been caused due to any mechanism failure of the bike. On scrutiny of Exs.P6 and P7, it is seen that the charge sheet had been filed against the first respondent and that he had voluntarily admitted his guilt and paid the fire before the criminal Court. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidences and on observing that no oral or documentary evidence had been let in on the respondents' side to rebut the claim of P.W.1, held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. 8. R.W.1 Arthanareeswaran/second respondent had adduced evidence that he is the owner of the bike bearing registration No.TDO 1865 and that he had paid the fine in the criminal court in the criminal case lodged against the driver of his bike namely Kumar. He deposed that the claimant was not his brother as alleged by the third respondent and that the claimant belongs to the Gounder Caste and that he was a Vanniar. 9. R.W.2 A.Kasardheen, Village Administrative Officer, had adduced evidence that on enquiry made by him, it was found that the claimant and R.W.1 are brothers. However, the Tribunal was not inclined to accept his evidence as his evidence was not based on the Voters List. 10. R.W.3 Thiruvengadam had adduced evidence that the second respondent's bike had been covered under a policy of insurance from 14.10.1998 to 13.10.1999 and in support of his evidence he had marked Ex.R6. He further deposed that another claim had been filed in M.C.O.P.No.146 of 2000 showing involvement of the same vehicle in the accident and that in that case, as the vehicle involved in the accident was not traced, the claimant had withdrawn the case filed by him and lodged a fresh and false claim showing that the vehicle involved in the accident was that of his brother. However, the Tribunal had opined that mere withdrawal of case filed earlier showing involvement of the same vehicle does not conclusively prove that the present case is a false one. 11. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence, held that the claimant had sustained injuries in the accident, as per the statements made in the claim and hence held that the claimant is entitled to get compensation. 12. 11. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence, held that the claimant had sustained injuries in the accident, as per the statements made in the claim and hence held that the claimant is entitled to get compensation. 12. P.W.1 had further adduced evidence that due to the accident, he had sustained injuries in his head, right shoulder and that he had received treatment at C.K.Hospital, Erode, as an inpatient for 12 days and in support of his evidence, he had marked Exs.P5, P18 and P10. On scrutiny of Ex.P5, it is seen that the claimant had sustained fracture of bone in his right shoulder and also sustained seven simple injuries. 13. P.W.2 Dr.Rajamanickam had adduced evidence that due to the accident, the claimant had sustained fracture of clavicle bone in his right shoulder and other parts of his head and that even after treatment, he experiences headache and giddiness. He deposed that the length of the fractured bone had been reduced and that it had malunited and due to this the claimant was not able to lift his hand above 90 Degrees and that he would not be able to do his work as a mechanic. He certified that the claimant had sustained 30% disability and in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P11 disability certificate and Ex.P12 X'rays. 14. On scrutiny of Ex.P9, it is seen that the claimant was running a registered shop in the name and style of 'Rasu Auto Centre'. However, as no documentary evidence had been marked to prove his income, the Tribunal held that the notional income of the claimant could only be taken as Rs.3,000/-per month. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P5, had observed that the claimant was aged 29 years at the time of accident. Hence, the Tribunal on adopting a multiplier of 18, awarded a sum of Rs.1,94,400/-as compensation under the head of loss of income due to disability (3,000 X 30/100 X 12 X 18), Rs.10,000/- was awarded for pain and suffering, Rs.1,000/- was awarded for transport, Rs.38,497/- was awarded for medical expenses as per medical bills marked as Ex.P8. Hence, the Tribunal on adopting a multiplier of 18, awarded a sum of Rs.1,94,400/-as compensation under the head of loss of income due to disability (3,000 X 30/100 X 12 X 18), Rs.10,000/- was awarded for pain and suffering, Rs.1,000/- was awarded for transport, Rs.38,497/- was awarded for medical expenses as per medical bills marked as Ex.P8. In total, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,53,897/- as compensation to the claimant and directed the respondents to jointly or severally deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim till the date of payment of compensation, with costs, within a period of one month from the date of it's order. 15. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the Tribunal, the third respondent/Insurance Company has preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in the appeal that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the claimant in collusion with the rider and owner of the vehicle, who is the brother of the claimant had defrauded the Court and this respondent. It is contended further that FIR was lodged by none other than the third respondent herein, who is the brother of the claimant. It is contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the vehicle belonging to the third respondent herein was already implicated in another accident on 11.11.1998 in respect of which the third respondent had given a statement in Ex.R6 alleging that his vehicle was implicated falsely by the claimant's counsel. 17. It is contended that the Tribunal had failed to appreciate that the V.A.O namely R.W.2 had clearly stated that P.W.1 and R.W.1 were brothers and hence the Tribunal erred in rejecting the evidence of R.W.2. It is contended that the Tribunal failed to note that there was no independent witness on record to show that the claimant was injured by the motorcycle bearing registration No.TDO 1865, belonging to the third respondent herein. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 18. The very competent counsel for the claimant has submitted that the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries and he had undergone medical treatment at two different hospitals. The doctor had assessed the disability at 30%. The offending vehicle rider had been punished by the Criminal Court for his rash and negligent driving. 18. The very competent counsel for the claimant has submitted that the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries and he had undergone medical treatment at two different hospitals. The doctor had assessed the disability at 30%. The offending vehicle rider had been punished by the Criminal Court for his rash and negligent driving. The claimant had spent a sum of Rs.38,497/-towards medical expenses. Considering this aspect, the Tribunal had decided all the issues in an appropriate manner. As such, there is no lacuna in the said award granted by the Tribunal. 19. On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusion arrived at regarding negligence and liability. However, the quantum of compensation is on the higher side. Since the Tribunal had adopted multiplier method and awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.1,94,400/- under the head of disability, which is not pertinent in the instant case. Therefore, this Court reassess the compensation as follows: i. Rs.38,497/- is awarded under the head of medical expenses, ii. Rs.60,000/- is awarded under the head of disability, iii. Rs.15,000/- is awarded under the head of pain and suffering, iv. Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head of transport, v. Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head of attender charges, vi. Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head of nutrition, and vii. Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of earning during medical treatment period. In total, this Court awards Rs.1,53,497/-as compensation to the claimant as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. The rate of interest remains unaltered. 20. At the time of admission, this Court has directed the appellant Insurance Company to deposit 50% of the compensation amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.148 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Bhavani. Now, this Court directs the appellant Insurance Company to deposit the balance compensation amount, as per this Court's findings, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.148 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Bhavani, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 21. Now, this Court directs the appellant Insurance Company to deposit the balance compensation amount, as per this Court's findings, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.148 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Bhavani, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 21. After such a deposit having been made, 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.148 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Bhavani, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Judgment. 22. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed and the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2003, made in M.C.O.P.No.148 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Bhavani, is modified. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There is no order as to costs.