JUDGMENT Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded to the 1st respondent herein/claimant by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Ranipet, in and by award dated 27.04.2009 in M.C.O.P.No.51 of 2008, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. 2. With regard to the quantum of compensation, it is the case of the 1st respondent/claimant that on account of accident that had occurred on 01.04.2003 involving the lorry bearing Registration No.HR 55 A 9915 owned by the 2nd respondent herein and insured with the appellant herein/Insurance Company, he had sustained fracture on his right leg above the knee; that the Doctor has assessed the disability suffered by him as 55%; that he is a professional photographer and due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he is not in a position to stand for long time, which affects his profession. 3. Before the Tribunal, in order to prove the disability suffered by the claimant, he examined himself as P.W.1 besides examining one Dr.Koshalram as P.W.2, and marked seventeen documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17. On the side of the Insurance Company, neither oral nor documentary evidence was produced. 4. The Tribunal, by considering the evidence of P.W.2-Doctor, has fixed the disability suffered by the claimant as 50%. By fixing a sum of Rs.3,000/-as monthly income of the claimant/injured and by deducting 1/3 towards his personal expenses, the Tribunal has arrived at a sum of Rs.24,000/- as annual income of the injured. Thereafter, by taking the disability suffered by the claimant as 50% and by applying multiplier of 18, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- (24000 X 18 x 50/100) under the head of loss of earning power. 5. Now, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that the accident took place in the year 2003 and P.W.1-claimant had adduced evidence in the year 2009 ie., after six years from the date of accident and further, in his evidence, P.W.1-claimant has not stated that he was not continuing his profession, on account of the disability suffered by him in the accident. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that from a perusal of the evidence of P.W.2, it could be seen that even on the date of adducing evidence, the claimant is continuing his profession. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that from a perusal of the evidence of P.W.2, it could be seen that even on the date of adducing evidence, the claimant is continuing his profession. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal ought not to have applied multiplier method. Further, a sum of Rs.30,000/-awarded by the Tribunal under the head of future medical expenses is on the higher side and the same has to be reduced. 7. The learned counsel for the claimant made his submission that it is incorrect to state that the victim is continuing his profession even at the time of adducing evidence. In fact, the claimant/victim sustained multiple fractures on his right leg and therefore, no infirmity could be found in the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of earning power by applying multiplier method. Similarly, a sum of Rs.30,000/-awarded by the Tribunal under the head of future medical expenses, cannot be said to be on the higher side. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Keeping the submissions made on either side, I have carefully gone through the materials available on record. From a perusal of the evidence of P.W.1-Claimant it is seen that there is no evidence to the effect that the claimant was completely prevented from carrying on his avocation of photographer on account of the disability suffered by him in the accident. Therefore, as contended by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, it is not a fit case to apply the multiplier method. 9. However, as per the evidence of Doctor-P.W.2, the claimant has suffered disability at 55%. If a sum of Rs.2,500/- is taken for each percentage of disability, the amount works out for the disability at 55 % comes to Rs.1,37,500/-. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of earning power is hereby reduced to a sum of Rs.1,37,500/-. 10. Considering the nature of disability suffered by the claimant, he would find it difficult to do his work as he was doing before the accident. Hence, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is hereby awarded under the head of loss of amenities. A sum of Rs.5,000/-awarded by the Tribunal under the head of Extra-nurishment is hereby enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. 10. Considering the nature of disability suffered by the claimant, he would find it difficult to do his work as he was doing before the accident. Hence, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is hereby awarded under the head of loss of amenities. A sum of Rs.5,000/-awarded by the Tribunal under the head of Extra-nurishment is hereby enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal are confirmed in all other aspects. 11. Consequently, the award amount of Rs.4,11,300/-awarded by the Tribunal is hereby modified and reduced to Rs.3,75,000/-. Break up details of the modified compensation amount are as follows:- Loss of earning power Rs.1,37,500/- Loss of amenities Rs. 30,000/- Future medical Rs. 30,000/- Extra-nurishment Rs. 10,000/- Transportation Rs. 10,000/- Loss of income during treatment Rs. 20,000/- For Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/- For Medical expenses Rs.1,15,300/- Rs.3,72,800 (rounded of Rs.3,75,000/-) 12. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is ordered. It is represented that the entire award amount as awarded by the Tribunal has already be deposited. In view of the above modification, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the above modified award amount of Rs.3,75,000/-, proportionate interest and costs, after deducting the amount that has already been withdrawn by him, if any. The appellant/Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the amount more than that of the modified award amount. No costs.