Judgment : 1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited which figured as the third respondent in M.C.O.P.No.594 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2), Krishnagiri has come forward with the present Appeal challenging the award passed by the said Tribunal so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner while proceeding in a TVS Star Motor Cycle belonging to one G.Venkatesh, met with an accident as the said motor cycle was hit by a Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-33-A-2464 owned by the third respondent herein which was driven at the time of accident by the second respondent herein. Claiming that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the said Tractor by its driver viz., the second respondent herein, the first respondent herein/claimant made a claim of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation against the appellant and respondents 2 and 3. The respondents 2 and 3 herein did not contest the claim. The insurer viz., the appellant herein alone contested the claim disputing the averments made by the first respondent herein/ claimant regarding negligence and also the quantum of compensation claimed by the first respondent/claimant. 3. The appellant/insurer was given permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest the O.P. on all grounds of defence available to the insured in addition to the grounds of defence available to the insurer under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. In the enquiry, two witnesses were examined and 15 documents were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.15 on the side of the first respondent herein/claimant. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the respondents in the M.C.O.P. At the conclusion of enquiry, the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-33-A-2464 belonging to the third respondent herein which stood insured with the appellant herein. The Tribunal took the age of the first respondent herein/injured claimant to be 48 years, selected 13' to be the appropriate multiplier, assessed his annual income at Rs.99,876/-, found that the first respondent herein was found with 45% of permanent disability and calculated a sum of Rs.5,84,274/-as damages towards loss of future earning capacity. To the said amount conventional damages were added as follows: Pain and sufferings : Rs. To the said amount conventional damages were added as follows: Pain and sufferings : Rs. 9,000/- Extra nourishment : Rs. 9,000/- Damage to the personal belongings like clothes Medical expenses : Rs. 200/- : Rs. 32,084/- Extra charge : Rs. 150/- Transport expenses : Rs. 1,000/- Ultimately, the Tribunal arrived at the figure of Rs.6,35,708/-as the reasonable amount of compensation to which the first respondent herein/injured claimant was entitled. Based on the said finding, the Tribunal passed an award directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein and the appellant herein to jointly and severally pay the said amount together with an interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the M.C.O.P. till realisation and also pro-costs. The said award is challenged by the appellant/insurer in the present appeal not on the ground of fixation of liability but on the ground that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is highly unreasonable and excessive. 5. The point that arise for consideration in this appeal is: "Whether the amount awarded as compensation by the Tribunal is unreasonable, excessive and exorbitant requiring reduction by this Court?" 6. The arguments advanced by Mr.V.Kabir Das, learned counsel for the appellant and by Mr.Mukund R.Pandian, learned counsel for the first respondent/injured claimant are heard. The materials available on record are also perused. 7. As pointed out in the preliminary portion of this Judgment, it is not in dispute that an accident took place on 02.05.2005 at about 7.00 p.m. involving the TVS Star two wheeler belonging to one G.Venkatesh and a Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-33-A-2464. It is also not in dispute that the third respondent herein was the owner of the said Tractor; that the said Tractor stood insured with the appellant herein and that the second respondent herein was the driver (in-charge) of the Tractor at the time of accident. The finding of the Tribunal that the second respondent herein drove the Tractor with rashness and negligence which resulted in the accident has not been challenged and hence, the said finding has become final. On the other hand, the appellant/insurer has expressed grievance over the amount awarded as compensation. 8. The finding of the Tribunal that the second respondent herein drove the Tractor with rashness and negligence which resulted in the accident has not been challenged and hence, the said finding has become final. On the other hand, the appellant/insurer has expressed grievance over the amount awarded as compensation. 8. It is the contention of the appellant that the first respondent/ injured claimant was a permanent employee of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and after the occurrence, he did not lose the job and still continues as an employee under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and that hence, the Tribunal committed an error in holding the case to be a fit one for applying the multiplier method to assess compensation for the loss of future earning capacity. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that because of the erroneous application of the multiplier method to a case which is unfit for such application, excessive and exorbitant amount has been awarded as compensation to the first respondent/ injured claimant. 9. On the other hand, Mr.Mukund R.Pandian, learned counsel for the first respondent/injured claimant would submit that though the first respondent/injured claimant continued to be employed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, he had lost his opportunities of further promotion and that hence, the application of multiplier method was proper. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the first respondent/injured claimant that though the Medical Officer has assessed the permanent disability at 60%, the Tribunal took a conservative approach in fixing 45% as the extent of permanent disability suffered by the first respondent/injured claimant and that in any event, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the application of multiplier method in this case is not proper, the extent of disability should be assessed at 60% and other circumventional damages should also be increased. 10. This Court paid its anxious consideration to the above said submissions made on both sides. 11. From evidence it is obvious that the first respondent/injured claimant suffered fractures at two places in the right femur and that after treatment though the broken pieces of bones have united, there is mal-union evidencing deformity to some extent. The Medical Officer, who examined him for issuing the disability certificate, deposed as P.W.2. 11. From evidence it is obvious that the first respondent/injured claimant suffered fractures at two places in the right femur and that after treatment though the broken pieces of bones have united, there is mal-union evidencing deformity to some extent. The Medical Officer, who examined him for issuing the disability certificate, deposed as P.W.2. He had described the nature of functional disabilities and certified the first respondent/injured claimant to be having 60% of functional disability. Of course, the said assessment at the outset may seem to be on the higher side. However, since there is no other contra evidence and the reliability of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in this regard are not successfully challenged, the Tribunal ought not to have substituted its opinion regarding the extent of disability without referring the injured person to a Medical Board or other specialised Medical Officer for the purpose of assessing the disability. Hence, this Court comes to the conclusion that in the absence of any other evidence, the Tribunal ought to have taken the functional disability caused to the first respondent/injured claimant at 60% as certified by P.W.2 under Ex.A.13. The Tribunal has committed a grave error in simply adopting the multiplier method without even considering the suitability of such a method for assessment of compensation in the case on hand. It is not the case of the first respondent/injured claimant that due to the consequences of the injuries sustained in the accident and due to the disability with which he is found, he had to discontinue his employment with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. It is also not his case that his earning capacity as a Wireman in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has been reduced atleast to some extent, if not to the extent of 60% of his earnings prior to the date of accident. 12. On the other hand, it is admitted that the first respondent/ injured claimant continued his job in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as Wireman and still he continues to be employed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in such capacity. There is no reliable evidence to show that he had lost his promotion avenues because of the disability with which he is found. There is no reliable evidence to show that he had lost his promotion avenues because of the disability with which he is found. Though there is a possibility of holding that the petitioner, as an experienced Wireman, would have undertaken some private work and due to the disability he may not be in a position to undertake private works, the loss occasioned in this regard would not be equated to 60% of his salary derived from Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The finding of the Tribunal that the loss of earning capacity shall be assessed at 60% of his salary drawn in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is totally on an erroneous footing. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case in which the Tribunal ought to have held that multiplier method would not be a desirable method and that application of lump sum method alone would be proper. Though the first respondent/injured claimant is aged 48 years and normally, in such cases, the amount of realisation awarded shall be minimum, this case can be taken as an exceptional case on the premise that his chance of undertaking private engagements for electrical works could have been lost and accordingly, a higher amount per percentage of disability shall be adopted. This Court deems it appropriate to adopt Rs.2,000/- per 1% of disability as lump sum compensation in this case. Accordingly, the compensation for permanent disability is assessed at Rs.1,20,000/-. 13. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.9,000/-as compensation towards pain and sufferings. Considering the nature of injury and the permanent disability with which he is found, this amount needs upward revision and fixing a sum of Rs.25,000/-shall be a reasonable one. The entire amount covered by the medical bills has been awarded by the Tribunal which needs no interference. A sum of Rs.1,000/-alone has been awarded as damages towards transport expenses. The number of trips, the first respondent/injured claimant should have undertaken to and from the hospital should be taken into account in fixing the said amount. Accordingly, this Court decides to enhance the said amount to Rs.10,000/-. For extra nourishment, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.9,000/-. No separate amount has been awarded towards expenditure on attendants during the period of treatment. The said amount can be slightly increased and made to Rs.10,000/- representing expenditure towards extra nourishment and medical attendant charges. Accordingly, this Court decides to enhance the said amount to Rs.10,000/-. For extra nourishment, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.9,000/-. No separate amount has been awarded towards expenditure on attendants during the period of treatment. The said amount can be slightly increased and made to Rs.10,000/- representing expenditure towards extra nourishment and medical attendant charges. Apart from that, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.150/- as X-ray charges. This can be enhanced to Rs.5,000/- as X-ray charges plus expenditure incurred for getting the disability certificate. The Tribunal could have awarded some amount towards future medical expenses which the Tribunal has omitted. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards future medical expenses. Considering the nature of injuries, this Court can assume that the petitioner would have taken rest atleast for two months. Though he might have availed the earned leave or medical leave, this Court has to assess the said period to be one during which the first respondent/injured claimant suffered total loss of earning. On the said account, a sum of Rs.16,646/- shall be awarded. Accordingly, the total compensation can be fixed at Rs.2,28,730/-. At the risk of repetition, the break-up particulars and the total amount are furnished hereunder: Permanent Disability : Rs.1,20,000/- Pain and sufferings : Rs. 25,000/- Medical expenses : Rs. 32,084/- Transport expenses : Rs. 10,000/- Extra nourishment and medical attendant charges : Rs. 10,000/- X-ray charges and expenditure incurred for getting disability certificate : Rs. 5,000/- Future Medical expenses : Rs. 10,000/- Loss of earning capacity : Rs. 16,646/- Total Rs.2,28,730/- According to the considered view of this Court, the above said amount shall be the reasonable amount that can be awarded as compensation to the first respondent/injured claimant. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is definitely excessive and exorbitant and the same deserves interference and reduction as indicated supra. 14. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part and the award of the Tribunal is modified by reducing the total award amount to Rs.2,28,730/-from 6,35,708/-. In all other respects, including the rate of interest, the award of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed subject to the above said modification regarding the quantum alone. The appellant/Insurance Company shall be at liberty to withdraw the excess amount deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.594 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.2), Krishnagiri. The appellant/Insurance Company shall be at liberty to withdraw the excess amount deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.594 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.2), Krishnagiri. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.