JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order dated 09.05.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.102 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Chief Judicial Magistrate of Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 09.05.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.102 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Chief Judicial Magistrate of Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur. 2. The appellant is the third respondent/ Insurance Company. The first respondent is the claimant. He filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.102 of 2018 stating that on 09.06.2017 at 05.00 a.m, when he was travelling in a four wheeler bearing Regn.No.TN-58-U-1478 and when the said car was proceeding on the Kollam-Thirumangalam Road in the Sivarampetti Curved Road, after Tenkasi, from South to North, the driver of the four wheeler drove the car in rash and negligent manner and dashed against a coconut tree. In the said accident, the claimant sustained multiple fractures in his left rib bones, blood clotting in lungs and also sustained lacerated injuries in the back side of the head, forehead and back side. In the claim petition, he claimed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The said petition was partly allowed by the tribunal. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,39,600/- as compensation under the following heads: For loss of earning capacity and permanent disability Rs. 5,61,600/- For transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- For nutrition Rs. 10,000/- For damage to clothes Rs. 3,000/- For attendant charges Rs. 10,000/- For pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/- Total Rs. 6,39,600/- To the first respondent/claimant and directed the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company (appellant herein) to pay the said amount to the claimant. Challenging the said award of the tribunal, the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company has filed the present appeal before this Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that they are not disputing the manner of the accident and liability. They are only disputing the quantum and also the manner, in which, the tribunal adopted the multiplier method and it is not a fit case to adopt multiplier method and it is a case of total functional disability. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that they are not disputing the manner of the accident and liability. They are only disputing the quantum and also the manner, in which, the tribunal adopted the multiplier method and it is not a fit case to adopt multiplier method and it is a case of total functional disability. Even though the Medical Board has given 60% of the disability, the tribunal has only adopted 40% of the functional disability and adopted multiplier method and taking into consideration the age of the injured at 25, the tribunal applied Sarla Verma Case. There is no evidence to show that the injured was working as a Coach for the Karate students. He would further submit that only a Private Institution has issued the certificate and the competent authority has not issued the valid certificate and in fact, the tribunal failed to consider the same. Since there was no evidence to show that he lost his total function, he would submit that without admitting the fact that the claimant is doing his Coach work, he can do the same through an instructor and for all these works, his physical presence and activity are not necessary and further, there is no proof for monthly income. Therefore, fixation of notional income at Rs.6,500/- by the tribunal is without any document. Therefore, the award passed by the tribunal is liable to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant would submit that first respondent/claimant is a black belt holder and he is also doing the Coach work to the students of Karate and the tribunal has rightly fixed Rs.6,500/- as notional income and even though the Medical Board has fixed the disability at 60%, the tribunal only accepted 40% of functional disability. Therefore, in the said circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the award passed by the tribunal. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records carefully. 7. Since the accident is not disputed and the manner of the accident is also not disputed and liability of the appellant is also not disputed, this Court need not go into the facts regarding the accident and manner of the accident and liability of the accident. 8. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records carefully. 7. Since the accident is not disputed and the manner of the accident is also not disputed and liability of the appellant is also not disputed, this Court need not go into the facts regarding the accident and manner of the accident and liability of the accident. 8. Since the learned counsel for the appellant himself is disputing the quantum of award, a careful reading of the award passed by the tribunal, it is seen that the tribunal fixed the notional income at Rs.6,500/- as monthly income and considering the age of the injured at 25, it adopted the multiplier as per Sarla Verma case as 18. Thus, the compensation for loss of earning capacity was derived by the tribunal as follows: Rs.6,500/- x 12 x 18= Rs.14,04,000 x 40/100= Rs. Rs.5,61,600/- 9. A reading of the entire records and also the evidence of the petitioner, though the medical board has fixed 60% disability, there is no evidence to show that there is total permanent disability and the claimant is not able to do any work. Therefore, under the said circumstances, this Court finds that there is perversity in the multiplier method adopted by the tribunal. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that though the Medical Board had fixed 60% disability, for adopting only 40% disability, the tribunal has not given any reason. Further, this Court is of the view that Sarla Verma case is only applicable to the fatal case not in the disability case. Therefore, there are no records to show expert evidence that the claimant is not in a position to do any work. In the said circumstances, the multiplier method is not applicable to the present case. Therefore, this Court has taken the functional disability at 60%, but not accepting the multiplier method, this Court is of view that Rs. 3,000/- can be granted for each percentage of disability. Thus for 60% disability, Rs.3,000 x 60= Rs.1,80,000/- is granted and that would be the just and fair compensation under the head of disability. Hence, the compensation under the ground of 'loss of earning capacity and permanent disability' is modified as “disability'. As far as the other heads are concerned, there is no reason to interfere with the same. The modified compensation reads as follows: For disability Rs. Hence, the compensation under the ground of 'loss of earning capacity and permanent disability' is modified as “disability'. As far as the other heads are concerned, there is no reason to interfere with the same. The modified compensation reads as follows: For disability Rs. 1,80,000/- For transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- For nutrition Rs. 10,000/- For damage to clothes Rs. 3,000/- For attendant charges Rs. 10,000/- For pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/- Total Rs. 2,58,000/- The first respondent/claimant is entitled to Rs.2,58,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty eight thousand only). 11. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. No costs. The compensation is modified from Rs.6,39,600/- to Rs.2,58,000/-. The appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the modified compensation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with accrued interest and costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.