JUDGMENT : The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode”. 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the award dated 24.01.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.3806 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Cuddalore. 3. The appellant is the respondent in M.C.O.P.No.3806 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Cuddalore. The respondent filed the above said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 03.10.2015. 4. According to respondent, on 03.10.2015 at about 11.20 A.M., while he was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 31 AE 6365 from East to West on the extreme left side of the Anguchettypalayam – Salem Main Road, near SVM Pawn Broker shop, the driver of the bearing Registration No.TN 23 N 2216 belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction, dashed against the motorcycle driven by the respondent and caused the accident. In the accident, the respondent sustained grievous injuries and fractures all over the body and head. Immediately after the accident, he was taken to Government Hospital, Panruti for first aid treatment and then referred to PIMS Hospital, Pondicherry. Thereafter he was shifted to Vallivilas Hospital, Cuddalore, where he underwent surgery to fix steel plate in his zygomatic bone and right shoulder bone and continued his treatment till filing of the claim petition. Therefore, he filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him against the appellant-Transport Corporation. 5. The appellant-Transport Corporation filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondent. The appellant denied the manner of accident as alleged by the 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 Vellore to Chidambaram, near SVM Pawn Broker shop at Anguchettypalayam, the respondent who was riding the motorcycle from Branch road to Main Road on seeing the bus, applied sudden brake and fell down on the road and sustained injuries. 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 rider of the motorcycle. 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 rider of the motorcycle. Hence, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondent. The respondent was not wearing helmet at the time of accident and also he was not possessing valid driving license at the time of accident. The appellant-Transport Corporation denied the age, avocation, income, nature of injuries, disability and period of treatment taken by the respondent. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by him is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. Before the Tribunal, the respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and 6 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6. The appellant-Transport Corporation examined the driver of the bus as R.W.1 and no document was marked. The disability certificate of the respondent was marked as Ex.C1. 7. 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.9,88,800/- as compensation to the respondent. 8. To set aside the award dated 24.01.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.3806 of 2015, the appellant-Transport Corporation has come out with the present appeal. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that 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 Tribunal has to independently consider the evidence let in before it. The Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of R.W.1, who is the driver of the bus. The 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.6,500/- per month fixed by the Tribunal as notional income of the respondent is excessive. The Tribunal ought not to have taken the percentage of disability of the respondent at 55% as the same is on the higher side. In the absence of any material evidence with regard to avocation and income, a sum of Rs.6,500/- per month fixed by the Tribunal as notional income of the respondent is excessive. The Tribunal ought not to have taken the percentage of disability of the respondent at 55% as the same is on the higher side. 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. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation and perused the entire materials on record. 11. It is the case of the respondent that while he was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 31 AE 6365 from East to West on the extreme left side of the Anguchettypalayam – Salem Main Road, near SVM Pawn Broker shop, the driver of the bearing Registration No.TN 23 N 2216 belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction, dashed against the motorcycle driven by the respondent and caused the accident. To prove the said contention, the respondent examined himself as P.W.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 Vellore to Chidambaram, near SVM Pawn Broker shop at Anguchettypalayam, the respondent who was riding the motorcycle from Branch road to Main Road on seeing the bus, applied sudden brake and fell down on the road and sustained injuries. To prove the said contention, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. R.W.1 is an interested witness and the appellant has not examined any other independent witness to prove that the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. Further, R.W.1 or the appellant has not filed any objection to F.I.R., which was registered against the driver of the bus and has not lodged any complaint against the rider of the motorcycle and also not proved by acceptable evidence that the respondent was not wearing helmet at the time of accident. Further, R.W.1 or the appellant has not filed any objection to F.I.R., which was registered against the driver of the bus and has not lodged any complaint against the rider of the motorcycle and also not proved by acceptable evidence that the respondent was not wearing helmet at the time of accident. The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, R.W.1 and contents of Ex.P1/F.I.R., which was registered against the driver of the bus, Ex.P5/Motor Vehicle Inspector's report and failure on the part of the appellant for not lodging any complaint against the rider of the motorcycle 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. 12. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the case of the respondent that in the accident he sustained head injury, compound right zygomatic arch fracture with right maxillary sinus & orbit, clavical fracture and multiple injuries all over the body. To prove the nature of injuries and disability suffered by him, he examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.C1/disability certificate. The Medical Board examined the respondent and certified that the respondent suffered 50% disability and issued Ex.C1/disability certificate to that effect. It is the further case of the respondent that at the time of accident, he was an Agriculturist aged 25 years and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. As per Ex.P2/Accident Register, the respondent was aged 27 years at the time of accident. He has not filed any document to prove the avocation and income. In the absence of any material evidence with regard to avocation and income, the Tribunal considering the year of accident, age and nature of work done by the deceased, fixed a sum of Rs.6,500/- per month as notional income of the deceased, which is not excessive. The Tribunal considering the nature of injuries, disability and the nature of work done by him, fixed the percentage of permanent disability of the respondent at 55%, adopted multiplier method for awarding compensation towards loss of earning capacity and the same is proper. The Tribunal considering the nature of injuries, disability and the nature of work done by him, fixed the percentage of permanent disability of the respondent at 55%, adopted multiplier method for awarding compensation towards loss of earning capacity and the same is proper. The Tribunal, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 SC [Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another], rightly applied multiplier 17' and awarded a sum of Rs.7,29,300/- as compensation towards loss of earning capacity and the same is proper. Immediately after the accident, the respondent was taken to Government Hospital, Panruti for first aid treatment and then referred to PIMS Hospital, Pondicherry, where he has taken treatment as inpatient from 03.10.2015 to 05.10.2015. Thereafter he was shifted to Vallivilas Hospital, Cuddalore, where he underwent surgery to fix steel plate in his zygomatic bone and right shoulder bone and has taken treatment as inpatient from 05.10.2015 to 10.10.2015. Considering the nature of injuries, period of treatment taken and disability suffered by the respondent, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are not excessive warranting interference by this Court. 13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and a sum of Rs.9,88,800/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the respondent, along with interest and costs is confirmed. The appellant- Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount if any already deposited, 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.3806 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Cuddalore. On such deposit, the respondent is permitted to withdraw the award amount along with interest and costs, after adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.