JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.423 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Coimbatore.) V.M.Velumani, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.423 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Coimbatore. 2. The appellant/Insurance Company is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.423 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Coimbatore. The 1st respondent filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 05.10.2015. 3. According to the 1st respondent, on the date of accident i.e., on 05.10.2015 at about 23.00 hours, while he was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 39 BQ 5529 on Tiruppur – Perumallur Main Road from South to North direction, near Raba KRR Honda show room, the 2nd respondent, the driver-cum-owner of the Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration No.TN 39 BL 3740, who came in the opposite direction, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle driven by the 1st respondent and caused the accident. In the accident, the 1st respondent sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Therefore, the 1st respondent has filed the above claim petition claiming compensation against the 2nd respondent, driver-cum-owner of the Auto Rickshaw and appellant/Insurance Company, insurer of the said Auto Rickshaw. 4. The 2nd respondent, driver-cum-owner of the Auto Rickshaw remained exparte before the Tribunal. 5. The appellant/Insurance Company filed counter statement denying the manner of the accident stated by the 1st respondent and stated that the accident has occurred only due to negligence of the 1st respondent, who rode the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 39 BQ 5529 in a negligent manner. The 1st respondent sustained only simple injuries, the amount claimed by him is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and one Chinnasamy, his employer was examined as P.W.2 and 11 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P11. The appellant/Insurance Company did not let in any oral and documentary evidence. 6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and one Chinnasamy, his employer was examined as P.W.2 and 11 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P11. The appellant/Insurance Company did not let in any oral and documentary evidence. Disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, Kovai Medical College 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 2nd respondent, the driver-cum-owner of Auto Rickshaw and directed the 2nd respondent as well as appellant/Insurance Company being the insurer of the said Auto Rickshaw to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.18,45,800/- as compensation to the 1st respondent. 8. Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company contended that the assessment of disability by the Medical Board is on the higher side and it has to be reviewed. The injuries sustained by the 1st respondent would not affect his earning capacity. The Tribunal without considering the same, adopted multiplier method and granted enhancement towards future prospects. The Tribunal in the absence of any document with regard to avocation and income of the 1st respondent, erred in fixing a sum of Rs.13,000/- towards monthly income and awarded a sum of Rs.14,62,500/- towards loss of earning, which is excessive. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities are also excessive and prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the caveator/1st respondent contended that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and perused the entire materials on record. 12. From the materials on record, it is seen that in the accident, the 1st respondent suffered multiple injuries in right humerus, supracondylar fracture, right distal femur fracture and both bones right leg fracture, which resulted in partial loss of rom at right elbow, right knee, co-ordinated activities of right upper limb and stability of right lower limb. The 1st respondent took treatment as in-patient at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital from 06.10.2015 to 14.01.2016 and underwent multiple surgeries. The 1st respondent took treatment as in-patient at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital from 06.10.2015 to 14.01.2016 and underwent multiple surgeries. The 1st respondent appeared before the Medical Board. The Medical Board examined the 1st respondent and assessed that he suffered 72% permanent disability. The Tribunal taking into consideration the nature of injuries, nature of disability, disability certificate, nature of work done by the 1st respondent before the accident and judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2020 (1) TNMAC 202 (DB) [The Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. B.Madhu and another], held that permanent disability is different from functional disability and fixed 50% as functional disability of the 1st respondent and adopted multiplier method. 12(i).The 1st respondent claimed that he was aged 40 years at the time of accident, he was working as a Cutting Master in Divyatex, Tiruppur and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. To prove his claim, the 1st respondent examined one Chinnasamy, employer, as P.W.2. P.W.2 deposed that 1st respondent worked in his Company from February 2012 to October 2015 and he was paid a sum of Rs.26,500/- per month as salary and marked Ex.P10 salary certificate. The Tribunal in the absence of any supporting document with regard to existence of Company of P.W.2, did not accept evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.P10. The Tribunal following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2020 (1) TNMAC 202 (DB) cited supra, fixed monthly income of the 1st respondent at Rs.13,000/-. The accident is of the year 2015 and the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is not excessive. The 1st respondent was aged 40 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017(2)TNMAC 609 (SC) (National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi), granted 25% enhancement towards future prospects and following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC [Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another], applied multiplier 15' and granted a sum of Rs.14,62,500/- towards loss of earning. There is no error in the said award of the Tribunal with regard to loss of earning. 12(ii). The Tribunal in addition to that amount, awarded Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities, extra nourishment and attendant charges respectively. There is no error in the said award of the Tribunal with regard to loss of earning. 12(ii). The Tribunal in addition to that amount, awarded Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities, extra nourishment and attendant charges respectively. The 1st respondent took treatment as in-patient at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital from 06.10.2015 to 14.01.2016 and marked Ex.P3. Taking into consideration the treatment taken by the 1st respondent, the amounts granted by the Tribunal towards extra nourishment and attendant charges are meagre and hence, the same are hereby enhanced to Rs.50,000/- each. Considering the treatment taken by the 1st respondent and surgeries underwent by him, we are of the opinion that amounts granted by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities are excessive and hence, the same are hereby reduced from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- and from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/- respectively. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under all other heads are just and reasonable and hence, the same are hereby confirmed. 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 or  Reduced 1. Loss of earning 14,62,500 14,62,500 Confirmed 2. Pain and  suffering 2,00,000 1,00,000 Reduced 3. Loss of  amenities 1,00,000 50,000 Reduced 4. Medical  Expenses 15,300 15,300 Confirmed 5. Extra  nourishment 20,000 50,000 Enhanced 6. Transportation 20,000 20,000 Confirmed 7. Attendant  Charges 25,000 50,000 Enhanced 8. Damage to  clothes 3,000 3,000 Confirmed Total 18,45,800 17,50,800 Reduced by  Rs.95,000/- . 13. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The compensation of Rs.18,45,800/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby reduced to Rs.17,50,800/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum (excluding the default period, if any) from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount now determined by this Court along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the 1st respondent is permitted to withdraw the award amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, after adjusting the amount if any, already withdrawn. On such deposit, the 1st respondent is permitted to withdraw the award amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, after adjusting the amount if any, already withdrawn. The appellant/Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the excess amount lying in the deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.423 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Coimbatore, if the entire award amount has already been deposited by them. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.