JUDGMENT:- 1. The appellant is the Insurance Company. The first respondent is the injured, who suffered 40% disability in the motor accident. He was a broker dealing in Tractor and two wheelers and he also was carrying out agricultural operations. According to the claimant, he earned Rs.10,000/- every month. 2. The case of the first respondent claimant is that while he was riding a two wheeler, he was hit by a Tractor. The said Tractor was insured with the appellant insurance company. The rider of the two wheeler viz., the claimant/first respondent suffered 40% disability due to the accident. He filed M.C.O.P.No.494 of 2009 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/III Additional Sub Judge, Trichy, claiming Rs.12,00,000/- as compensation. According to him, the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor driver. 3. The Tribunal passed a judgment and decree dated 31.07.2012, awarding compensation of Rs.5,11,015/- under various heads as follows: Loss of Earning : Rs.3,45,600/- Pain and Suffering : Rs. 15,000/- Extra Nourishment : Rs. 5,000/- Transport expenses : Rs. 5,000/- Loss of earning during treatment period : Rs. 5,000/- Damages of articles : Rs. 1,000/- Medical Bills : Rs.1,34,415/- Total : Rs.5,11,015/- 4. The appellant has questioned the aforesaid award. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal committed an error in adopting multiplier method, since the disability did not reduce the earning capacity of the injured and he could carry on his earlier avocation. In these circumstances, the Tribunal could not have adopted multiplier method to arrive at loss of income. 5. I am not inclined to agree with the said submission in view of the categorical deposition of the doctor and the same is considered in paragraphs No.11 and 12 of the judgment. Paras 11 and 12 of the judgment are extracted hereunder: “TAMIL” 6. The aforesaid findings of the Tribunal make it clear that the claimant was not able to catch hold of things and he could not carry out his work and also there was an operation conducted in the stomach part. It is also stated that his kidney was also damaged. 7. In these circumstances, I am of the view that he could not carry out his normal duties, which he carried out earlier. It is also stated that his kidney was also damaged. 7. In these circumstances, I am of the view that he could not carry out his normal duties, which he carried out earlier. He could not ride the two wheeler as well as he could not carry on agricultural operation, based on the findings of the Tribunal in paragraphs No.11 and 12. 8. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the award. Even otherwise, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.5,11,015/- as compensation, after recording that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries and also suffered 40% disability as stated above. The Tribunal has awarded only a lesser amount towards pain and suffering. Taking into account the entirety, I am of the view that the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is a reasonable one and the same does not call for any interference. 9. Therefore, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The first respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount that was deposited by the appellant insurance company before the Tribunal.