JUDGMENT : Abdul Quddhose, J. (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and Judgment dated 22nd day of June 2018 made in MCOP.No.1525 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.2, Salem.) 1. The instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award and decree dated 22.06.2018, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.2, Salem, in M.C.O.P.No.1525 of 2013. Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal: 2. The first respondent sustained injuries on 08.07.2013 as a result of an accident caused by a Tata Lorry Eicher bearing registration No.TN. 70 B 6289 owned by the second respondent and insured with the Appellant. On 08.07.2013, when the first respondent was riding a Hero Honda Splendor Plus bearing registration No.KA 41-W-1682 from Bangalore to Mecheri along with his friend Ravi, who was the pillion rider, a Tata Lorry Eicher bearing registration No.TN 70-B-6289 owned by the second respondent and insured with the Appellant which was coming in the opposite direction hit against the two wheeler which caused grievous injuries to the first respondent who was the rider of the two wheeler. 3. The first respondent preferred a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.2, Salem, in M.C.O.P.No.1525 of 2013 against the Appellant as well as the second respondent seeking a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him as a result of the accident. 4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by a common award dated 22.06.2018 in M.C.O.P.No.1525 of 2013 and M.C.O.P.No.1526 of 2013, directed the Appellant to pay the first respondent, the rider of the motor cycle, a sum of Rs.19,33,637/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of claim till the date of realization excluding the period from 18.01.2016 to 18.08.2016 being the period when the claim petition was not restored to file of the Tribunal after it was dismissed for default on 18.01.2016. 5. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MCOP.No.1525 of 2013 , the instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. 6. Heard Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.M.R.Thangavel, learned counsel for the first respondent. 5. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MCOP.No.1525 of 2013 , the instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. 6. Heard Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.M.R.Thangavel, learned counsel for the first respondent. Despite service of notice on the second respondent, there is no representation on the side of the second respondent. Discussion: 7. The only ground raised by the Insurance Company is that the Tribunal ought not to have assessed the functional disability of the first respondent at 56.33% and ought not to have applied the multiplier method while assessing the compensation. It is their case that without any documentary evidence to prove that the first respondent has suffered functional disability, the Tribunal has erroneously assessed the functional disability of the first respondent as a result of the injury sustained by him at 56.33%. 8. It is not in dispute that the first respondent has sustained the following injuries as a result of the accident caused by the insured vehicle: (i). Polytrauma (ii).Comminuted segmental fracture right shaft of femur (iii).Right leg both bones (iv).Undisplaced fracture neck of femure (v).Fracture inferior public ramus (vi).Multiple facial bone fractures (vii).Periocular soft tissue injury. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the first respondent, the assessment of his functional disability at 56.33% by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The first respondent was a building contractor at the time of the accident. The Tribunal ought to have considered the nature of his work while assessing his functional disability on account of the injuries sustained by him. The injuries sustained by the first respondent has not made him an invalid person, though his mobility has been restricted. We are of the considered view that the functional disability assessed by the Tribunal has to be reduced from 56.33 % to 40%. 9. The first respondent was hospitalized at Manipal Hospital on three occasions namely from (a) 09.07.2013 to 02.08.2013, (b) from 23.08.2013 to 27.08.2013 and (c) from 01.10.2013 and 03.10.2013. 10. The first respondent has claimed in the claim petition that he was working as a Building Wood Work contractor and earning a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month. But he has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that he was earning a monthly income of Rs.25,000/- at the time of the accident. The accident happened on 08.07.2013. 10. The first respondent has claimed in the claim petition that he was working as a Building Wood Work contractor and earning a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month. But he has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that he was earning a monthly income of Rs.25,000/- at the time of the accident. The accident happened on 08.07.2013. The Tribunal has rightly fixed the notional monthly income of first respondent at Rs.6,500/- by applying the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq and others vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC). 11. The first respondent was aged 24 years at the time of the accident as evidenced from the pan card (Ex.A24). Considering his age, the Tribunal has righlty applied the multiplier of 18 following the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC. The Tribunal has rightly awarded 40% towards loss of Future prospects in addition to the monthly income by following the decision of the Constitution Bench Judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Shethi and Others reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 . 12. Insofar as various other heads of compensation awarded by the Tribunal are concerned, the same has been assessed by the Tribunal only in accordance with settled principles of law and the same does not call for any interference. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is modified in the following manner: Heads Amount awarded by the tribunal Amount awarded by this Court Loss of income Rs.11,07,222/- (6,500 x 12 = 78,000 + 40% = 1,09,200 x 18 = 19,65,600 x 56.33%) Rs.7,86,240/- (6,500 x 12 = 78,000 + 40% = 1,09,200 x 18 = 19,65,600 x 40%) Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- Loss of amenities Rs.70,000/- Rs.70,000/- Medical Expenses Rs.6,60,915/- Rs.6,60,915/- Transport Charges Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Extra Nourishment Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/- Attender Charges Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- Damage to clothes Rs.500/- Rs.500/- Total Rs.19,33,637/- Rs.16,12,655/- Conclusion: 14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the award amount passed in MCOP.No.1525 of 2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.2, Salem by assessing the total compensation at Rs.16,12,655/- instead of Rs.19,33,637/-. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the award amount passed in MCOP.No.1525 of 2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.2, Salem by assessing the total compensation at Rs.16,12,655/- instead of Rs.19,33,637/-. However, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 7.5% per annum is confirmed. The Appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount as per the order of this court before the Tribunal along with interest and costs after deducting the amount, if any already deposited, to the credit of MCOP.No.1525 of 2013 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the award amount together with accrued interest to the first respondent through RTGS within a period of four weeks thereafter. No costs.