JUDGMENT : V.M. VELUMANI, J. 1. The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode.” 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the award dated 18.02.2019 made in M.C.O.P. No. 1105 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Coimbatore. 3. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 1105 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Coimbatore. The 1st respondent filed the above said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 07.05.2016. 4. According to 1st respondent, on 07.05.2016 at about 06.45 P.M. while he was waiting to cross the road near Kovilpalayam Bus Stand on Coimbatore, the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-38N-2507 belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from Annur to Coimbatore in a wrong side without giving horn, dashed against the 1st respondent and caused the accident. In the accident, the 1st respondent sustained severe head injury and multiple grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was taken to Kurinchi Hospital, Coimbatore, where he has taken treatment as inpatient from 07.05.2016 to 24.05.2016. Therefore, he filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him against the 2nd respondent-driver of the bus and appellant-Transport Corporation. 5. The 2nd respondent-driver of the bus remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 6. The appellant-Transport Corporation filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the 1st respondent. The appellant denied the manner of accident as alleged by the 1st respondent. According to the appellant, while the driver of the bus belonging to appellant was driving the same at a moderate speed by observing the traffic rules from Varuthiyangar Palayam to Gandhipuram, at about 06.45 P.M. when the driver of the bus slowly turned the bus to enter into the Kovilpalayam bus stop. The 1st respondent who crossed the road without noticing the oncoming bus, dashed on the bus, fell down on the front side of the bus and invited the accident. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent who crossed the road without noticing the oncoming bus, dashed on the bus, fell down on the front side of the bus and invited the accident. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. Hence, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the 1st respondent. F.I.R. was registered against the 2nd respondent without proper investigation only with a view to get huge compensation from the Transport Corporation. The appellant-Transport Corporation denied the age, avocation, income, nature of injuries, disability and period of treatment taken by the 1st respondent. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the 1st respondent is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 7. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as PW-1 and PW-8 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P8. The appellant-Transport Corporation did not let in any oral and documentary evidence. The disability certificate of the 1st respondent was marked as Ex.C1. 8. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 12,32,555/- as compensation to the 1st respondent. 9. To set aside the award dated 18.02.2019 made in M.C.O.P. No. 1105 of 2016, the appellant-Transport Corporation has come out with the present appeal. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal ought not to have considered the evidence of PW-1, whose evidence was not corroborated by any other independent witness. The Tribunal ought not to have held that mere registering of F.I.R. is more enough for fixing negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal erroneously fixed negligence on the driver of the bus merely relying on the F.I.R. It is well settled that negligence cannot be fixed relying on the F.I.R. or judgments of the Criminal Court. The 1st respondent failed to prove his age, avocation and income. In the absence of any material evidence with regard to avocation and income, a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per month fixed by the Tribunal as notional income of the 1st respondent is excessive. The 1st respondent failed to prove his age, avocation and income. In the absence of any material evidence with regard to avocation and income, a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per month fixed by the Tribunal as notional income of the 1st respondent is excessive. The Tribunal ought not to have taken the permanent disability of the 1st respondent at 40% and ought not to have adopted multiplier method for awarding compensation for loss of earning capacity. This is not a fit case for adopting multiplier method. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings and loss of amenities are excessive and prayed for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 11. Though notice has been served on the 1st respondent and his name is printed in the cause list, there is no representation for him, either in person or through counsel. 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation and perused the entire materials on record. 13. It is the case of the respondent that while he was waiting to cross the road near Kovilpalayam Bus Stand on Coimbatore, the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-38N-2507 belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from Annur to Coimbatore in a wrong side without giving horn, dashed against the 1st respondent and caused the accident. To prove the said contention, the 1st respondent examined himself as PW-1 and marked F.I.R. as Ex.P1, which was registered against the driver of the bus and other documents. On the other hand, it is the case of the appellant-Transport Corporation that while the driver of the bus was driving the same at a moderate speed by observing the traffic rules from Varuthiyangar Palayam to Gandhipuram and when the driver of the bus slowly turned the bus to enter into the Kovilpalayam bus stop, the 1st respondent crossed the road without noticing the oncoming bus, dashed on the bus, fell down on the front side of the bus and invited the accident. To prove the said contention, the appellant has not examined the driver of the bus or any other independent witness to prove that the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. To prove the said contention, the appellant has not examined the driver of the bus or any other independent witness to prove that the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. Further, the appellant has not filed any objection to F.I.R. which was registered against the driver of the bus and also has not lodged any complaint against the 1st respondent. The Tribunal considering the evidence of PW-1 and contents of Ex.P1/F.I.R. which was registered against the driver of the bus, Ex.P2/charge sheet and Ex.P3/rough sketch and failure on the part of the appellant for not examining the driver of the bus or any other independent witness and lodging any complaint against the 1st respondent and not filing any objection to F.I.R. held that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation. There is no error in the said finding of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. 14. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the case of the respondent that in the accident he sustained abrasion in left arm, pin rolling movements in right hand, severe head injury and multiple grievous injuries all over the body. To prove the nature of injuries and disability suffered by him, the 1st respondent examined himself as PW-1 and marked Ex.C1/disability certificate issued by the Medical Board constituted by the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore. The Medical Board constituted by the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore examined the 1st respondent and certified that he suffered 40% disability and issued Ex.C1/disability certificate to that effect. It is the further case of the 1st respondent that at the time of accident he was aged 39 years, working as an Accountant in Auditor's Office, Coimbatore and was earning a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month. He has not filed any document to prove the avocation and income. Further, the 1st respondent also has not filed any document to show that he suffered functional disability and lost his earning capacity. The Tribunal in the absence of any materials, erroneously held that the 1st respondent has suffered disability in performing his day-to-day work and adopted multiplier method. The reason given by the Tribunal for adopting multiplier method is not correct. The Tribunal in the absence of any materials, erroneously held that the 1st respondent has suffered disability in performing his day-to-day work and adopted multiplier method. The reason given by the Tribunal for adopting multiplier method is not correct. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal by adopting multiplier method is liable to be set aside and it is hereby set aside. The 1st respondent is entitled to compensation for disability only by adopting percentage method. This Court by the judgment reported in M. Chinnathambi vs. S. Deepa and Another, 2020 (1) TN MAC 617 fixed a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per percentage of disability for the accident occurred in the year 2014 and 2015 and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per percentage of disability for the accident occurred from the year 2016 onwards, due to raise in cost of living. In the present case, the accident is of the year 2016. In view of the same, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded per percentage of disability. Thus, the 1st respondent is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. 5,000/- x 40% disability) towards disability. Immediately after the accident, the 1st respondent was taken to Kurinchi Hospital, Coimbatore, where he has taken treatment as inpatient for 18 days from 07.05.2016 to 24.05.2016. Considering the nature of injuries, period of treatment taken and disability suffered by the respondent, this Court is of the considered view that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are not excessive warranting interference by this Court. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows: S. No. Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs.) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs.) Award confirmed or enhanced or granted 1. Future loss of earning capacity 8,64,000/- -- Set aside 2. Disability -- 2,00,000/- Granted 3. Pain and sufferings 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/- Confirmed 4. Extra nourishment 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed 5. Medical expenses 1,93,555/- 1,93,555/- Confirmed 6. Loss of Amenities 50,000/- 50,000/- Confirmed 7. Transportation 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed 8. Damages to clothes 5,000/- 5,000/- Confirmed Total Rs. 12,32,555/- Rs. 5,68,555/- Reduced by Rs. 6,64,000/- 15. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 12,32,555/- is hereby reduced to Rs. 5,68,555/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 12,32,555/- Rs. 5,68,555/- Reduced by Rs. 6,64,000/- 15. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 12,32,555/- is hereby reduced to Rs. 5,68,555/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the modified award amount now determined by this Court along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 1105 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Coimbatore. On such deposit, the 1st respondent is permitted to withdraw the award amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn by making necessary applications before the Tribunal. The appellant-Transport Corporation is permitted to withdraw the amount lying in the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 1105 of 2016, if the award amount has already been deposited by them. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.