Judgment G. Chockalingam, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs.25,41,000/-in M.C.O.P.No.153 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Hosur, dated 31.07.2012, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation has filed this appeal. 2. The brief facts are as follows: On 28.05.2010 at about 3.35 p.m., when the claimant Kalyani was driving her Scooty Pep bearing Registration No.KA-01-EC-4293 from Madivala to Hosur, nearing Thirupathi Kalyana Mandapam, the bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation bearing Registration No.TN-32-N-2620 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came on the back side of the two wheeler and hit the two wheeler. In the accident, the claimant Kalyani sustained severe injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was taken to Government Hospital at Hosur. Thereafter, the claimant Kalyani was taken to Sparsh Hospital, Bangalore, where she has taken treatment as inpatient. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant's right hand is amputated and she is unable to do anything without the right hand. Before the accident, the claimant was working as a Principal in Hosur International School and was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. Alleging that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, the claimant Kalyani has filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.50 lakhs. 3. Resisting the claim petition, the appellant Transport Corporation filed the counter stating that the accident was not due to the negligence of the bus driver and that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant was on the higher side. 4. To substantiate her claim, before the Tribunal, the claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.P.1 to P.14 were marked. On the side of the appellant Transport Corporation, bus driver was examined as R.W.1 and one document was marked as Ex.R.1. 5. Upon consideration of the evidence both oral and documentary, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and held that respondent before the Tribunal/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. 5. Upon consideration of the evidence both oral and documentary, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and held that respondent before the Tribunal/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. Insofar as the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.25,41,000/- under various heads as under: Loss of Income Rs.21,60,000.00 Medical Expenses Rs. 2,21,000.00 Permanent Disability Rs. 1,60,000.00 Total Rs.25,41,000.00 6. The learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation raised a contention in the grounds of appeal that the Tribunal ought to have considered the evidence of R.W.1, who is the driver of the bus. R.W.1/driver had deposed that when he was driving the bus, a woman was riding her motorcycle in front of the bus and speaking over the mobile phone, she suddenly turned to the right side of the road and therefore, he could not control the bus and dashed against the motorcycle. Therefore, the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the motorcyclist. But, the Tribunal without appreciating the evidence on record, erred in fixing the liability on the part of the driver of the bus. The learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation further contended that the Tribunal ought to have fixed the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and further, the Tribunal has erred in adopting the multiplier as 15 for calculating the loss of future earnings of the claimant. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted multiplier as 15 after fixing the age of the claimant as more than 40 years. Hence, under the said circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal has to be modified in accordance with law. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant contended that the Tribunal, after analysing the evidence both oral and documentary, has come to a correct conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and fixed the liability on the part of the bus driver. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant contended that the Tribunal, after analysing the evidence both oral and documentary, has come to a correct conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and fixed the liability on the part of the bus driver. The learned counsel for the respondent/claimant further contended that since the respondent/claimant is not in fault, there is no question of contributory negligence in this case. The learned counsel further contended that due the accident, the respondent/claimant suffered 80% permanent disability and hence, the Tribunal has correctly adopted 15 multiplier and awarded just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference by this Court and the appeal has to be dismissed. 8. After hearing the elaborate arguments made on either side, the followings points arise for consideration in this appeal:- 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant/transport corporation? 2. What other reliefs that the claimant is entitled to? and 3. Whether the Tribunal has correctly awarded the compensation or not? 9. The respondent/claimant has filed an affidavit before the Tribunal, wherein, she has stated that on 28.05.2010 she was driving her Scooty Pep bearing Registration No.KA-01-EC-4293 from Madivala to Hosur. At about 3.35 p.m. when she was nearing Thirupathi Kalyana Mandapam, the appellant Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN-32-N-2620 came in the back side of the two wheeler and hit the two wheeler with rash and negligent manner without following the rules of the road. The accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Because of the accident, she has sustained injuries all over the body. To prove the same, she has marked Ex.P.1-F.I.R. and her statement is corroborated by Ex.P.1-F.I.R. 10. In this case, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. In his evidence, R.W.1 has stated as follows:- (“Tamil”) 11. According to R.W.1/driver of the bus, he has not given any complaint before the police regarding the accident. He has produced a sketch which was marked as Ex.R.1. The document Ex.R.1-sketch was drawn by the Accident Inspector, Hosur Accident Zone. But the same was not drawn by the police as stated by R.W.1. According to R.W.1/driver of the bus, he has not given any complaint before the police regarding the accident. He has produced a sketch which was marked as Ex.R.1. The document Ex.R.1-sketch was drawn by the Accident Inspector, Hosur Accident Zone. But the same was not drawn by the police as stated by R.W.1. A reading of the F.I.R. would go to show that the complaint was given by the husband of the claimant on 20.06.2010 for the accident which occurred on 28.05.2010. Even if the accident had not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, he ought to have given a complaint before the police on the date of accident itself. But he failed to do so. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant that since the bus driver is in fault he has not chosen to give a complaint before the police is acceptable one and hence, there is no reason to reject the evidence of the claimant-P.W.1. The Tribunal has correctly come to a conclusion that the accident had happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation and there is no question of contributory negligence on the part of the motorcyclist. Hence, we are of the considered view that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 12. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the respondent/claimant, one Mr.Sai Raghav was examined as P.W.2 to prove the salary certificate of the claimant. As per the evidence of P.W.2, the salary of the claimant, at the time of accident, was Rs.25,000/- per month. On the side of the claimant, Dr.Gandhi was examined as P.W.3. He has deposed in his evidence as follows:- (“Table”) 13. From the evidence of P.W.3-Doctor, it is clear that the claimant has suffered 80% disability. The permanent disability assessed by P.W.3 is reasonable one and the same has to be accepted and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.3. The Tribunal has correctly fixed the permanent disability suffered by the claimant at 80%. From the evidence of P.W.3-Doctor, it is clear that the claimant has suffered 80% disability. The permanent disability assessed by P.W.3 is reasonable one and the same has to be accepted and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.3. The Tribunal has correctly fixed the permanent disability suffered by the claimant at 80%. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal is erred in fixing the permanent disability does not hold good and it has to be rejected, since the salary of the claimant is proved clearly and due to the disability she cannot work as like in the previous stage. Hence, the Tribunal is correctly awarded the compensation for future earnings. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation has produced a decision of this Court reported in 2012 ACJ 1026 [Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Vs. Ajay Marar], wherein at paragraph No.25, this Court has held as follows:- "25. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,50,000/- towards permanent disability. When the Tribunal is awarding compensation for permanent disability and earning capacity, there cannot be separate compensation towards the injuries sustained. In Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. V. Ahmed Thambi, 2006 ACJ 2703 (Madras), Full Bench of this Court has considered the principles of assessment of compensation for permanent disability and on account of earning capacity, holding that loss of earning capacity and compensation for permanent disability need not be separately assessed. To ensure clarity and transparency in the award of damages Full Bench of this Court has laid down guidelines and also enumerated the various heads under which the compensation is to be itemized. "(19) ..... in order to avoid any future confusion and to bring more clarity and transparency in the award of damages, it is necessary that Tribunal, while awarding damages, should itemize the award under each head, namely, pecuniary losses and non-pecuniary losses. In the non-pecuniary losses the Claims Tribunal shall consider: (a) pain and suffering; (b) loss of amenity; (c) loss of expectation of life, hardship, mental stress, etc., and (d) loss of prospect of marriage, and under the head pecuniary losses, the Claims Tribunal shall consider loss of earning capacity and loss of future earnings as one component apart from medical and other expenses and loss of earnings, if any, from the date of accident till the date of trial. When loss of earning capacity is compensated as also the non-pecuniary losses under (a) to (d), permanent disability need not be separately itemized." Therefore, compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-awarded for the injuries/disability cannot be sustained." 15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant has produced a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 12 Supreme Court Cases 274 [K.Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and another], wherein at paragraph Nos.21 and 33 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "21. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the view of the High Court that no compensation can be granted towards permanent disability once compensation is computed for the loss of earning capacity and loss of future earnings is unsustainable. As is perceivable, the High Court has computed the loss of earning power at Rs.4,68,000 instead of Rs.5,00,000 as determined by the Tribunal and deleted sum of Rs.3,00,000 that was awarded by the Tribunal towards permanent disability. In our considered opinion, total deletion is absolutely unjustified and, in fact, runs counter to the principles laid down by this Court in Ramesh Chandra Vs. Randhir Singh, [ (1990) 3 SCC 723 ]. 22 to 32. ...... 33. Calculated on the aforesaid base, the compensation would be payable on the headings, namely, transport charges, extra nourishment, medical expenses, additional medical expenses, additional transport charges, pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity and permanent disability and the amount on the aforesaid scores would be, in toto, Rs.13,48,000. The said amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of application till the date of payment. The same shall be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of two months and the Tribunal shall disburse 50% of the amount in favour of the claimant and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in a nationalised bank for a period of three years. Be it clarified if the earlier awarded sum has been deposited, the differential sum shall be deposited within the stipulated time as mentioned hereinabove and the disbursement shall take place accordingly." 16. The learned counsel for the respondent/claimant has also produced a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No.6685 of 2007 [Alexander Anand Kumar Vs. Divisional Engineer (H), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "1. The learned counsel for the respondent/claimant has also produced a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No.6685 of 2007 [Alexander Anand Kumar Vs. Divisional Engineer (H), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (NPD-S) No.91 of 2001, dated 13.12.2006, whereby, the High Court while partly allowing the appeal of the injured appellant/claimant has come to the conclusion that the compensation payable can only be granted under any one of the heads, namely, either loss of earning capacity or permanent disability. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant brings to our notice a judgment of this Court in the case of K.Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & Anr., reported in (2012) 12 SCC 274 . In the said decision, this Court has categorically held that the compensation can be payable both for loss of earning capacity as well as disability suffered by the claimant. 3. In our considered opinion, the view taken by the High Court is contrary to the observations made by this Court in the case of K.Suresh (supra). In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside." 17. The respondent/claimant has produced her S.S.L.C. Mark Sheet which was marked as Ex.P.7. On a perusal of Ex.P.7, the date of birth of the respondent/claimant is 07.05.1971. Hence, the age of the claimant on the date of the accident i.e., on 28.05.2010 is 39 years. According to the principles of law laid down in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC), for the age group 39, the proper multiplier to be adopted is 15. The respondent/claimant's age is less than 40 years. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal has correctly applied the multiplier of 15. Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the finding given by the Tribunal in adopting the multiplier. The respondent/claimant claimed that she was working as a Principal in Hosur International School and was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/-per month. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal has correctly applied the multiplier of 15. Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the finding given by the Tribunal in adopting the multiplier. The respondent/claimant claimed that she was working as a Principal in Hosur International School and was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/-per month. But there is no document such as salary register or salary receipts etc., was produced by the claimant except Ex.P.12-Details of last month salary paper to prove that she was earning Rs.25,000/-per month. Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the fact that the claimant was working in a private school, has fixed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.15,000/-. As against the said finding given by the Tribunal in fixing the monthly income, the respondent/claimant has not preferred any counter claim or independent appeal. Therefore, the monthly income of Rs.15,000/-fixed by the Tribunal has to be upheld. In this case, the claimant has sustained 80% disability. Therefore, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly of the claimant as Rs.12,000/-[15,000 x 80/100 = Rs.12,000]. After adopting 15 multiplier, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.21,60,000.00 [Rs.12,000 x 12 x 15 = Rs.21,60,000/-]. We are of the considered view that the amount of Rs.21,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of Loss of Income is confirmed. Under the head of medical expenses, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,21,000/-which is reasonable and therefore there is no necessity to modify the same. Further, under the head of Permanent Disability, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-. In view of the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court in the decisions reported in [1] (2012) 12 Supreme Court Cases 274 [K.Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and another], [2] S.L.P.(C) No.6685 of 2007 [Alexander Anand Kumar Vs. Divisional Engineer (H)], and [3] 2012 ACJ 1026 [Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Vs. Ajay Marar], [cited supra], we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.60,000/- under the head of permanent disability. 18. Thus, in the above said circumstances, the compensation has to be re-assessed as follows:- S.No Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court (1) Loss of Income Rs. 21,60,000.00 Rs.21,60,000.00 (2) Medical Expenses Rs.2,21,000.00 Rs. 2,21,000.00 (3) Permanent Disability Rs. 1,60,000.00 Rs. 18. Thus, in the above said circumstances, the compensation has to be re-assessed as follows:- S.No Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court (1) Loss of Income Rs. 21,60,000.00 Rs.21,60,000.00 (2) Medical Expenses Rs.2,21,000.00 Rs. 2,21,000.00 (3) Permanent Disability Rs. 1,60,000.00 Rs. 60,000.00 Total Rs.25,41,000.00 Rs.24,41,000.00 The point Nos.2 and 3 are answered accordingly. 19. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part and the award passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.153 of 2011 is modified and the compensation of Rs.25,41,000/-awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.24,41,000.00. The reduced compensation is payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum along with proportionate costs awarded by the Tribunal. No costs in this appeal. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 20. The appellant Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the modified compensation amount along with accrued interest within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting the amount already deposited, if any. On such deposit, the respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same along with the accrued interest.