Judgment : 1. The appellant / second respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2006, made in M.C.O.P.No.107 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The claimant had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.107 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-from the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. 3. It was submitted that on 30.04.2002, at about 05.00 a.m., when the claimant entered into Muthu Auto Diesel Garage, Bharathi Nagar, Mettupalayam, a Diesel Tank of a Tanker Lorry bearing registration No.TN57 A7755 suddenly burnt, and as welding work of the tanker lorry was being carried out at that time, fire engulfed the tank and the surrounding regions. As a result, the claimant was trapped in the fire and sustained severe injuries. He was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Mettupalayam and received treatment as an inpatient for ten days. It was submitted that the welder of the workshop was solely responsible for the accident as he failed to test the tools and machineries and diesel tank before starting the work. Hence, the claimant had filed the claim petition against the respondents, who are the welder, insurer and owner of the lorry bearing registration No.TN57 A7755. 4. The second respondent Insurance Company, in their counter affidavit, had submitted that the claimant should prove his age, income, occupation, nature of injuries sustained and medical expenses involved through documentary evidence. It was submitted that as the accident was caused by the welder of the lorry and not due to any rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, the second respondent cannot be held liable to pay compensation. Further, it was submitted that as the accident had occurred at 05.00 a.m., on 30.04.2002 and that the insurance policy for the vehicle became operative only from the start of official duty time of the Insurance Company on 30.04.2002 and as such the vehicle was not covered under a valid policy of insurance at the time of accident. 5. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: i. Due to whose negligence was the accident caused? and ii. Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? 5. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: i. Due to whose negligence was the accident caused? and ii. Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 6. On the side of the claimant, three witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and 19 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P19 namely copy of FIR, copy of rough sketch, copy of charge sheet, copy of M.V.I's report, copy of accident register, copy of Criminal Court Judgement, medical receipts, discharge summary, photo, admission chit, certificate for purchase of research lab, medical treatment records, medical report issued at K.B.S.Hospital, driving licence, medical expenses particulars, disability certificate and copy of policy. On the side of the respondents, one witness was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked. 7. P.W.1 had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim regarding manner of accident. Further, he adduced evidence that he is the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN57 A7755. 8. P.W.2 Rajan had also adduced evidence that when he was doing the welding work, the diesel tank had burnt and subsequently fire had engulfed the tank and that P.W.1 had sustained injuries in the said accident. 9. R.W.1 had adduced evidence that as per the policy taken by the first respondent with them, the second respondent is only liable to compensate for liability of the driver of the lorry and that the coverage of insurance is provided only if the accident occurs at a public place. He deposed that as the present accident had occurred due to the negligence of a welder in a private place, the second respondent cannot be held liable to pay compensation. 10. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Exs.P1 and P3, observed that the FIR and charge sheet had been filed against Rajan and Muthusamy, who were carrying out the welding of the lorry at the time of accident. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.1, held that the accident had been caused by the negligence of the welder of the lorry bearing registration No.TN57 A7755. 11. P.W.1 had further adduced evidence that at the time of accident, he was aged 43 years and was working as the driver of the lorry and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. 12. 11. P.W.1 had further adduced evidence that at the time of accident, he was aged 43 years and was working as the driver of the lorry and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. 12. P.W.3 Dr.Thambiraj had adduced evidence that he had examined the claimant and he had certified that the claimant had sustained 24% disability due to injuries sustained in the accident and in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P18 disability certificate. The Tribunal, on taking the notional income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/-per month and on adopting a multiplier of 15, awarded a sum of Rs.2,16,000/-as compensation under the head of disability (5,000 X 24/100 X 12 X 15), Rs.64,000/-was awarded for medical expenses as per medical bills marked as Exs.P12 to P15 and P17, Rs.10,000/- was awarded for pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- was awarded for nutrition. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-as compensation to the claimant and directed the first and second respondents to jointly and severally deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensate, with costs, within a period of one month from the date of it's Order. The claim against the third respondent was dismissed. 13. Aggrieved by the said Award, the second respondent Insurance Company has preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company has contended in the appeal that the Tribunal failed to see that the Police filed the FIR in Crime No.294 of 2002, under Section 285 I.P.C., and not under any of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which only goes to show that the accident is not one as defined under Section 165 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is contended that the Tribunal after having found that the said accident was caused due to the negligence of the said Rajan, an employee of the third respondent herein, who was also examined as P.W.2, erroneously fastened the liability on the insurer of the motorcycle. It is contended that the Tribunal after having found that the said accident was caused due to the negligence of the said Rajan, an employee of the third respondent herein, who was also examined as P.W.2, erroneously fastened the liability on the insurer of the motorcycle. Further, it is contended that the Tribunal failed to see that the liability to pay compensate arises when the vehicle was driven by or put to use by the owner of the vehicle in a public place and due to rashness or negligence of the owner of the vehicle or his employees, if an accident occurs resulting in death or bodily injury to any third party. 15. Further, it is contended that the Tribunal after having found that the accident occurred due to negligence of the employee of the third respondent herein, ought to have fastened the liability only on the third respondent herein and exonerated the second respondent and the appellant Insurance Company from liability. It is also contended that the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal to assess loss of income was erroneous and that the award of Rs.2,16,000/-granted under the head of loss of income was excessive, as the claimant had neither proved his income nor proved loss of earning power. Hence, it was prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 16. The highly competent counsel for the claimant has vehemently argued that the claimant had sustained grievous injuries in the motor accident as the diesel tank of the lorry had been engulfed with fire during welding of the diesel tank. As such, it is considered as a motor vehicle accident and the Tribunal had appropriately granted compensation. The claimant had spent a sum of Rs.64,000/- towards medical expenses, since he had sustained grievous injuries. He had undergone treatment at Government Hospital, Mettupalayam, as well as private hospital as inpatient. The Doctor had assessed the disability at 29%. After the accident, the claimant is unable to do his avocation as a driver. Therefore, multiplier method had been adopted for assessment of compensation under the head of loss of income, which is admissible in the instant case. 17. The Doctor had assessed the disability at 29%. After the accident, the claimant is unable to do his avocation as a driver. Therefore, multiplier method had been adopted for assessment of compensation under the head of loss of income, which is admissible in the instant case. 17. On considering the facts and circumstances 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 conclusions arrived at regarding negligence and liability. However, the quantum of compensation is on the higher side, since the Tribunal had adopted multiplier method and granted the said compensation, which is not appropriate in the instant case. Therefore, this Court reassesses the compensation as follows: i. Rs.48,000/- is awarded towards disability, ii. Rs.64,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses, iii. Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering, iv. Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards transport expenses, v. Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards nutrition, vi. Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards attender charges, vii. Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of earning during medical treatment period and convalescence period, and viii. Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities and loss of comfort. In total, this Court awards Rs.2,02,000/-as compensation to the claimant as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. The rate of interest remains unaltered. 18. This Court has already directed the appellant Insurance Company to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.107 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam. 19. Now, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the modified compensation amount, as per this Court's findings, with proportionate interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.107 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Judgment. Likewise, the appellant is at liberty withdraw the excess compensation amount with proportionate interest thereon after filing a memo. 20. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed and the Judgment and decree dated 17.01.2006, made in M.C.O.P.No.107 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam, is modified. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.