JUDGMENT : (Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2017 passed in M.C.O.P. No.202 of 2014 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Sub Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madurantakam.) 1. The judgment and decree dated 01.07.2017 passed in M.C.O.P. No.202 of 2014 by the learned Sub Judge, Sub Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madurantakam, is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The accident occurred on 29.06.2014 at about 15.30 Hours at Kovai to Trichy Main Road, in front of Sulur Lorry Owners Association Sangam Petrol Bunk, Sulur, Coimbatore District. The Sulur Police Station registered a case in Crime No.504 of 2014 under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. 3. The respondent-claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.PY-01-PG-2371 from Sulur Air Force to Sulur. The other vehicle involved in the accident is Yamaha Crux Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-37-BV-1020. Due to the accident, the respondent-claimant sustained grievous injuries, including fractures all over the body. 4. The claim petition was filed by the respondent-claimant before the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents and evidences produced by the respective parties. 6. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,53,554/- and challenging the same, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company reiterated that the award of the Tribunal, is exorbitant. The Tribunal has not considered the nature of injuries sustained and the consequences. There is no loss of income as such and the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.6,74,114/- towards disability compensation. 7. The appellant-Insurance Company contended that the competent Medical Board assessed the disability at 40% and the said disability had not affected the job of the respondent-claimant in the Indian Air Force. The respondent-claimant also has not produced any evidence to establish that due to the accident, he is deprived of his service or some reduction of service or otherwise, was imposed by the Indian Air Force Authorities. In the absence of any such evidence to establish the loss of income, loss of job or any other service consequences, the Tribunal ought not to have granted such a huge compensation in the case of an injury and more-so, the injuries are also not grievous. In the absence of any such evidence to establish the loss of income, loss of job or any other service consequences, the Tribunal ought not to have granted such a huge compensation in the case of an injury and more-so, the injuries are also not grievous. The respondent-claimant is aged about 25 years at the time of accident and after treatment, he became normal and there is no permanent disability as such. Thus, the award of the Tribunal is perverse and liable to be scrapped. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- claimant disputed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company by stating that the respondent-claimant was aged about 25 years at the time of accident and he was a young Air Force worker. The accident made him to suffer for a long period. There was a reduction of service, which affected his career and therefore, the same is in consonance with the principles laid down and there is no error apparent on the part of the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- claimant is of the opinion that the services of the claimant was affected due to the accident and therefore, the award of compensation by the Tribunal is reasonable and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. The findings of the Tribunal regarding the negligence aspect is that as per Ex.P-3, the rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-37-BV-1020 is guilty of rash and negligent riding of his motorcycle and he is responsible for the accident. Due to which, the respondent-claimant sustained injuries. More-specifically, the accused pleaded guilty before the Criminal Court and paid the fine amount on 25.09.2015 under Ex.P-3. Thus, the Tribunal arrived a conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-37-BV-1020. 11. Regarding the quantum of compensation is concerned, the findings of the Tribunal are to be considered. The Tribunal considered the Medical Reports as well as the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board. 12. Admittedly, the competent Medical Board has issued the Disability Certificate, by stating that the claimant suffered 40% partial permanent disability. However, the Tribunal has modified the same as 15% functional disability and applied the multiplier and accordingly, awarded a sum of Rs.6,74,114/- towards disability compensation. 13. 12. Admittedly, the competent Medical Board has issued the Disability Certificate, by stating that the claimant suffered 40% partial permanent disability. However, the Tribunal has modified the same as 15% functional disability and applied the multiplier and accordingly, awarded a sum of Rs.6,74,114/- towards disability compensation. 13. It is relevant to consider the findings of the Tribunal in this regard, which reads as under:- “He got injury on his left leg and left thigh and his Patella and femur got fractured. He has got permanent disability. However, the petitioner is still working in the Air Force. The petitioner has stated in his chief examination that his service has been reduced 20 years without promotion and he has lost 19 years service. But he has not filed any document in proof of his claim nor has he examined any official witness for reduction of service. As per the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board (Exhibit P-19), the petitioner's disability is 40%. In the disability certificate, it has been mentioned that he is fit for routine duties not involving severe physical or mental stress and he should not sit cross legged and squat. Therefore, the disability caused to the petitioner did not affect his functional ability to full extent in discharge of duties. Therefore, the petitioner is still retained in service. The petitioner did not examine the person, who has given the disability certificate. The percentage of the disability is expressed by the doctor with reference to left leg of the petitioner. According to the doctor, the disability in the left leg of the petitioner is 40%. The extent of disability of the limb expressed in terms of the percentage of the total function of that limb cannot be assumed to be the extent of the disability of the old body.” 14. The above findings of the Tribunal reveal the fact that the respondent-claimant has not submitted any documents to establish that there is a loss of income or his services are affected. In fact, the respondent-claimant is retained in the same position in the Air Force and is working continuously. If at all any service reduction is imposed on the respondent-claimant, then there must be an order from the Air Force Authorities and in the absence of any such order, the Tribunal cannot come to a conclusion that the services of the respondent-claimant is reduced. If at all any service reduction is imposed on the respondent-claimant, then there must be an order from the Air Force Authorities and in the absence of any such order, the Tribunal cannot come to a conclusion that the services of the respondent-claimant is reduced. In other words, the Air Force, being an Defence Ministry Wing, any service condition, affecting the services of the employees, is to be done by passing an appropriate order. Thus, in the absence of any such order, which is to be placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal cannot come to a conclusion that the statement made by the claimant is reliable. Mere statement in this regard is insufficient. The orders, if any, passed by the Air Force Authorities are to be produced or at least an Air Force official must be examined as a witness. In the absence of any such evidence, the Tribunal has committed an error in arriving a conclusion that the services of the respondent-claimant is reduced and therefore, the respondent-claimant is entitled for such a compensation. 15. This apart, the Medical Board has made an observation in the Disability Certificate that the respondent-claimant is fit for routine duties, not involving severe physical or mental stress. Therefore, in order to award more compensation, the other materials, affecting the services, must be produced by the respondent-claimant. Admittedly, no such document has been produced by the respondent-claimant, except the statement made before the Court. 16. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award of disability compensation and the total compensation granted by the Tribunal, are not in commensuration with the grievousness of the injuries and undoubtedly excessive. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal stands modified as detailed hereunder:- Rs. For Disability (Rs.4,000/-x40) 1,60,000/- Medical Expenses 88,634/- Transport Expenses 10,000/- For Extra Nourishment 10,000/- For Pain and Sufferings 50,000/- Total Rs.3,18,634/- Thus, the respondent-claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,18,634/- with accrued interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 17. The respondent-claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified award amount of Rs.3,18,634/- by filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal and payments are to be made through RTGS. If any excess amount is paid by the appellant-Insurance Company, the same is to be returned to the appellant-Insurance Company and the appellant-Insurance Company, in this regard, is permitted to file an appropriate application before the Tribunal. 18. If any excess amount is paid by the appellant-Insurance Company, the same is to be returned to the appellant-Insurance Company and the appellant-Insurance Company, in this regard, is permitted to file an appropriate application before the Tribunal. 18. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2017 passed in M.C.O.P. No.202 of 2014 by the learned Sub Judge, Sub Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madurantakam stands modified and consequently, CMA No.2441 of 2019 is allowed in part. However, there shall be no order as to costs.