JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.04.2013 made in MCOP.No.104 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (PSJ) Krishnagiri.) 1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance company challenging the impugned award dated 19.04.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge) in MCOP.No.104 of 2009. 2. Heard Ms.I.Malar, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.Prasanna, learned counsel for the first respondent. 3. The first respondent/claimant preferred a claim seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him as a result of an accident caused by a vehicle owned by the second respondent and insured with the Appellant. 4. The Tribunal under the impugned award directed the Appellant Insurance company to pay the first respondent/claimant a compensation of Rs.17,07,346/- together with interest and costs as detailed hereunder: Heads Award Amount (Rs.) Loss of future earnings 8,26,200/- (4500 x 12 x 17 x 90%) Pain and suffering 40,000/- Transportation 27,516/- Medical Expenses 71,630/- Nutrition 20,000/- Attender charges 6,72,000/- Future medical treatment 50,000/- Total 17,07,346/- 5. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent/claimant has filed twelve documents which were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 and two witnesses were examined on his side namely, the first respondent/claimant himself as PW1 and the Doctor who medically examined him as PW2. On the side of the Appellant Insurance Company neither any document was filed nor any witness examined, before the Tribunal. 6. As per Ex.A4, CT Scan report, the first respondent/claimant has sustained the following injuries: (1) Fracture lateral wall of the right maxillary antrum with oblique fracture to the base of the right petrous temporal bone and the right squamous temporal bone. (2) Post-traumatic collections -right maxilary / sphenoidal sinuses and the mastrod air cells bilaterally, right side more than left. (3) Normal intracranium. (4) Right temporo -parieto - frontal extracranial soft tissue contusions petition mentioned grievous injuries. 7. (2) Post-traumatic collections -right maxilary / sphenoidal sinuses and the mastrod air cells bilaterally, right side more than left. (3) Normal intracranium. (4) Right temporo -parieto - frontal extracranial soft tissue contusions petition mentioned grievous injuries. 7. As per Ex.A5, MRI Report, the first respondent/claimant has sustained the following injuries: (1) Acute anterior wedge compression of the T7 vertebral body with retropulsion of portions of its canalicular cortex into the canal associated with central compressions of the T6 vertebral body, Fractures to the lamnae of the T7, T6/T5 vertebrae, to the T6/T7 articular processes, Associated with listhesis T6 over T7 vertebrae causing the cal/cord compressions, with cord contusions / left sided posterior shaft rib fractures. (2) Acute Post -traumatic changes to the T9 vertebral body. 8. As per Ex.A7 CT Tarsahal spine scan report, the first respondent/claimant has sustained the following injuries: (1) Fracture with wedge compression of D7 vertebral body with small retro pulsed fragment causing mild compression of the thecal sac on the left side. (2) Pedicle screws at D5 and D9 in situ. S The nature of injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant has not been disputed by the Appellant Insurance company before the Tribunal as seen from the evidence available on record. 9. The Doctor has assessed the disability of the first respondent/claimant at 100%. However, the Tribunal has assessed the same at 90%. The Tribunal after giving due consideration to the injuries as well as to the period of the first respondent/claimant’s hospitalisation, has adopted the multiplier method for the purpose of assessing the compensation towards loss of future earnings. Under the impugned award, the Tribunal has also extracted the statements made by the Doctor who has examined the first respondent/claimant. The Doctor has categorically stated that the first respondent/claimant due to the injuries sustained as a result of the accident requires constant medical attention. The Tribunal has rightly adopted the correct multiplier of 17 as the first respondent/claimant was aged 32 years at the time of the accident. 10. The notional monthly income of the first respondent/claimant was fixed at Rs.4,500/- which cannot be considered to be excessive as alleged by the Appellant Insurance Company as the accident happened in the year 2007. The loss of future earnings assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.8,26,200/- which cannot be considered to be excessive as alleged by the Appellant Insurance Company. 11. The notional monthly income of the first respondent/claimant was fixed at Rs.4,500/- which cannot be considered to be excessive as alleged by the Appellant Insurance Company as the accident happened in the year 2007. The loss of future earnings assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.8,26,200/- which cannot be considered to be excessive as alleged by the Appellant Insurance Company. 11. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.27,516 towards transportation charges based on the bills produced by the first respondent/claimant which has been marked as Ex.A10 before the Tribunal, Rs.71,630/- towards medical bills based on the medical bills produced by the first respondent/claimant which has been marked as Ex.A7 before the Tribunal, Rs.20,000/- towards nutrition and Rs.6,72,000/- towards attender charges calculated at Rs.2,000/- per month for the period of 28 years ie., upto the first respondent/claimant reaching the age of 60 years which cannot be considered to be excessive as alleged by the Appellant Insurance Company, since admittedly the first respondent/claimant has to be bedridden and cannot move about as a normal human being. 12. The Tribunal has also awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards expenses for Future medical treatment to the first respondent/claimant which cannot be considered to be excessive as the first respondent/claimant sustained grievous injuries which has resulted in him becoming immobile and bed ridden. 13. Infact, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of future prospects which he is legally entitled to, since the first respondent/claimant has sustained grievous injuries and the disability caused to him by the said injuries are permanent in nature. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the first respondent/claimant at Rs.17,07,346/- cannot be considered to be excessive as alleged by the Appellant Insurance Company. 14. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. The Appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount awarded by the Tribunal, after deducting the amount already deposited if any, together with interest from the date of claim till the date of deposit and costs to the credit of MCOP.No.104 of 2008 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal shall transfer the amount lying to the credit of MCOP.No.104 of 2008 to the bank account of the first respondent /claimant directly through RTGS within a period of one week thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.