JUDGMENT : J.NISHA BANU, J. In an accident which occurred on 10.12.2013, the 1st respondent/claimant sustained crush injuries. He filed a claim petition in MCOP.No.499 of 2014, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Thoothukudi, and the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.62,67,730/- with 7.5% interest per annum, from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. Challenging the quantum of compensation, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant would state that though the 1st respondent/claimant said to have sustained 57% disability, he is still continuing his avocation as Banking Officer and when there is no total disablement or functional disability to the claimant, resulting in loss of earning capacity, the Tribunal ought not to have applied multiplier method, which is arbitrary. He would further state that the award of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities are on the higher side. Thus, he would pray for appropriate modification on the quantum. 3. The 1st respondent/claimant has filed CMP(MD)No.3648 of 2019, under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC, to receive and mark the proceedings of the claimant's employer, dated 17.11.2017, and salary certificate of the claimant, dated 31.07.2018 and salary certificate of the colleague, dated 31.07.2018, as additional evidence in this appeal, stating that those documents were not available during trial. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimant would state that the claimant got appointment as General Banking Officer, at the young age of 23 years, and in the unfortunate accident, he lost the use of his both legs below hip, for which, he took treatment between 10.12.2013 to 04.05.2014, during which, he underwent many surgeries and received rehabilitative treatment for 5 years. In view of the accident, the claimant has taken leave for 11 months and therefore, his job has not been confirmed till date. According to the learned counsel, due to loss of service for 11 months, the claimant is receiving less pay than his colleagues and his future promotions will be delayed by one year and the pay difference due to this will be minimum of Rs.30,000/- per month in the upcoming scales. According to the learned counsel, due to loss of service for 11 months, the claimant is receiving less pay than his colleagues and his future promotions will be delayed by one year and the pay difference due to this will be minimum of Rs.30,000/- per month in the upcoming scales. But, the Tribunal has failed to award loss of income for 11 months of service at Rs.3,12,859/- to the claimant and loss of income for his parents at Rs.2,69,428/-, who have taken leave under loss of pay to take care of the claimant. 4. He would further state that due to injuries, the claimant is unable to live independently and his father used to drop and pick up him from his office in a Taxi and the Taxi fare is approximately Rs.200/- every day. He would also state that due to the crush injuries, the claimant is undergoing physiotherapy and reflexology therapy, in order to prevent deterioration in the physical condition and to regain any possible movement in his legs, and functionality in one leg of the claimant could be restored to some extent, through knee corrections, which would require 5 surgeries over a period of 6 months, at a cost of Rs.10,00,000/-, which the claimant or his parents are not able to afford, but the Tribunal has not awarded any sum for future medical expenses. He would also state that in view of skin grafting done in the leg, the claimant is experienced severe pain and suffering, but the Tribunal has awarded meagre amount of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering. The learned counsel would further state that the award under the heads transport charges, extra nourishment and loss of amenities are meagre. Thus, he would pray for enhancement on the quantum. In support of his contentions, he would rely on the following decisions.:- i) National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. C.Ramesh Babu reported in 2013 (2) TN MAC 636. ii) Dinesh Singh vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd., reported in 2014 ACJ 1412 . iii) Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar reported in 2010 (2) TN MAC 581(SC). iv) The Branch Manager vs. A.P.Maha Bharathi (CMA.No.1301 of 2002, dated 27.10.2010). 5. The appellant has filed counter in CMP(MD)No.3648 of 2019. ii) Dinesh Singh vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd., reported in 2014 ACJ 1412 . iii) Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar reported in 2010 (2) TN MAC 581(SC). iv) The Branch Manager vs. A.P.Maha Bharathi (CMA.No.1301 of 2002, dated 27.10.2010). 5. The appellant has filed counter in CMP(MD)No.3648 of 2019. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that in the absence of any challenge to the quantum of compensation by the claimant by way of separate appeal, the above petition under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, in the appeal filed by the insurance company, seeking enhancement of compensation, is not maintainable. He has further stated that the claimant himself has admitted that there is no reduction of rank, pay and there is no loss of income. The claimant is employed in a banking institution, apart from merit, promotion will be based on the performance appraisal, incentives and other criteria. Therefore, in the absence of proof that on account of accidental injuries, the claimant was not considered for promotion, and his colleague was given higher post and hike in salary, the additional evidence are of no relevance and it cannot be marked in evidence. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the above CMP. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents. 7. Perusal of record shows that it is the case of the 1st respondent/claimant that, he is a B.E. Computer Science Engineering graduate and employed as a General Banking Officer in Bank of India, Thoothukudi. In the accident, he sustained crush injuries on his both legs and initially, he had taken treatment at AVM Hospital, Thoothukudi and thereafter took further treatment at Thiraviam Orthopaedic Hospital, Nagercoil, as inpatient for 5 months and also at Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore. As per Ex.P33-wound certificate, the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his right thigh, right lower thigh, knee and left lower thigh and other injuries were simple in nature. PW3-Orthopaedic Surgeon, has stated that wounds were cleaned 30 times after giving anaesthesia and three surgeries were performed to the claimant. He has assessed the permanent disability at 57%. As per Ex.P33-wound certificate, the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his right thigh, right lower thigh, knee and left lower thigh and other injuries were simple in nature. PW3-Orthopaedic Surgeon, has stated that wounds were cleaned 30 times after giving anaesthesia and three surgeries were performed to the claimant. He has assessed the permanent disability at 57%. The Tribunal relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another reported in (2011) SCC 343, wherein, it has been held that where there is total disability and the injured could not walk due to injuries, multiplier method has to be applied and found that in the present case also, the claimant has sustained crush injuries on both legs below hip, unable to walk and brought in a wheel chair, and therefore, the Tribunal adopted multiplier method. 8. In this regard, it is relevant to extract paragraphs 10 and 13 of the judgment in Raj Kumar's case(supra):- ''10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may. 13. We may now summarise the principles discussed above: (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. Be that as it may. 13. We may now summarise the principles discussed above: (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.'' 9.A Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Veluchamy and another reported in I (2006) ACC 416, sets out the parameters as to when the multiplier method can be adopted in the case of injury. In Paragraph 11 of the decision reads thus:- "11. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (a) In all cases of injury or permanent disablement 'multiplier method' cannot be mechanically applied to ascertain the future loss of income or earning power. (b) It depends upon various factors such as nature and extent of disablement, avocation of the injured and whether it would affect his employment or earning power, etc. and if so, to what extent? (c) (1) If there is categorical evidence that because of injury and consequential disability, the injured lost his employment or avocation completely and has to be idle for the rest of his life, in that event loss of income or earnings may be ascertained by applying the 'multiplier method' as provided under the Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (2) Even so there is no need to adopt the same period as that of fatal cases as provided under the Schedule. (2) Even so there is no need to adopt the same period as that of fatal cases as provided under the Schedule. If there is no amputation and if there is evidence to show that there is likelihood of reduction or improvement in future years, lesser period may be adopted for ascertainment of loss of income. (d) Mainly it depends upon the avocation or profession or nature of employment being attended by the injured at the time of accident." 10. From the above judgments, it is clear that the approach of the Tribunal in the present case is erroneous, for the simple reason that the injuries sustained by the claimant have not resulted in loss of earning capacity or 100% functional disability. Though the learned counsel for the claimant relied on the above decisions to justify the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal, as held in the above decisions, only where due to the injuries, the claimant could not at all do his avocation and has to remain idle for the rest of the life time, multiplier method has to be resorted. In this case, the claimant is still continuing his avocation as Banking Officer and discharging his duties and there is no evidence available on record to show that his promotion has been affected which resulted in loss of income. Therefore, we are of the view that application of multiplier method is wholly unjustified. Thus, the award of the Tribunal at Rs.45,78,955/-, towards total permanent disability, is set aside and considering the nature of injuries, this Court is inclined to award Rs. 4,000/- for each percentage of disability, as per the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. G.Ramesh, reported in 2013 (2) TN MAC 583. Accordingly, for 57% disability, a sum of Rs. 2,28,000/- is awarded towards permanent disability. 11. The claimant has field CMP(MD)No.3648 of 2019 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, to receive additional documents of the years 2017 and 2018, to establish that on account of accidental injuries, there is a pay parity between the pay of the claimant and his colleagues. The accident is of the year 2013. As rightly contended by the appellant, there is no proof that on account of accidental injuries, the claimant was not considered for promotion, and his colleague was given higher post and hike in salary. The accident is of the year 2013. As rightly contended by the appellant, there is no proof that on account of accidental injuries, the claimant was not considered for promotion, and his colleague was given higher post and hike in salary. Thus, we are of the view that the said documents are of no relevance to this case and therefore, CMP(MD)No.3648 of 2019 is dismissed. 12. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum for loss of income during treatment period. The claimant has taken treatment from 10.12.2013 to 16.10.2014. The salary drawn by the claimant for November 2013, prior to the accident as per Ex.P18-Attested copy of salary certificate of the claimant for the month of November 2013, is Rs. 24,794/- and for 11 months, it comes to Rs.2,72,734/-. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.2,72,734/- is hereby awarded for loss of income during treatment period. The award of the Tribunal at Rs.14,73,775/- towards medical bills duly supported by Exs.P14, 15, 23 to 27 and 36 is sustained. Considering the period of hospitalisation of the claimant i.e., 11 months, the award of the Tribunal at Rs.1,00,000/- towards attendant charges is enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/-. As per the evidence of PW3- Orthopaedic Surgeon, three surgeries were performed to the claimant, due to which, the claimant would have experienced severe pain and suffering. Considering the fact that the claimant has sustained crush injuries, this Court is inclined to enhance the award towards pain and suffering at Rs.2,00,000/- as against Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Due to the crush injuries, the claimant would have taken nutritious food for speedy recovery, for which, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment, which is grossly inadequate and therefore, it is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. Considering the period of treatment, the award of Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. The claimant has suffered crush injuries, due to which, he has lost amenities to large extent, for which, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- which in our opinion, is on the lower side and we enhance the same to Rs.2,00,000/-. Considering the period of treatment, the award of Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. The claimant has suffered crush injuries, due to which, he has lost amenities to large extent, for which, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- which in our opinion, is on the lower side and we enhance the same to Rs.2,00,000/-. The learned counsel for the respondent/claimant would state that functionality in one leg of the claimant could be restored to some extent, through knee corrections which would require 5 surgeries over a period of 6 months at a cost of Rs.10,00,000/-, but the Tribunal has not granted any sum for future medical expenses. Considering the above submission, this Court is inclined to award Rs.5,00,000/- towards future medical expenses. The total award is modified and apportioned as hereunder:- Permanent disability Rs. 2,28,000/- Loss of income during treatment Rs. 2,72,734/- Medical bills Rs.14,73,775/- Attendant charges Rs. 2,00,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 2,00,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 1,00,000/- Transport charges Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 2,00,000/- Future medical expenses Rs. 5,00,000/- Total Rs.32,74,509/- Rounded to Rs.32,75,000/- (Less)Award of the Tribunal Rs.62,67,730- Reduction Rs.29,92,730/- 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified and the appellant and the 2nd respondent jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.32,75,000/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, less the amount already deposited, if any, to the credit of MCOP.No.499 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Thoothukudi, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the 1st respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same, without filing formal permission petition, before the Tribunal. 14. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. CMP(MD)No.3648 of 2019 is dismissed. No costs.