JUDGMENT : Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Trichy made in M.C.O.P.No.1053 / 2013 dated 28.02.2014 and allow the appeal with costs. 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P. No.1053 of 2013, dated 28.02.2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub-ordinate Judge), Trichy. 2. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the first respondent herein is the claimant and the second respondent herein is the first respondent in the main claim petition. 3. Brief substance of the petition in M.C.O.P.No.1053 of 2013 is as follows:- (i) On 21.05.2011 at about 09.05 p.m., near Amarar Chinnasamy Park, K.K.Nagar, Trichy on K.K.Nagar road, when the first respondent/petitioner was driving a motor-cycle bearing registration No.TN.48-C-4142 on the extreme left side of K.K.Nagar road in a normal speed and adhering the traffic rules carefully, the another Motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-45-AS-2434, came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent dashed against the petitioner’s vehicle. The claimant sustained multiple injuries all over his body. Thereafter, he was admitted in the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Trichy for first aid and then, he was admitted in KMC Specialty hospital, Trichy and took that must as an inpatient for a period of one month and then he got treatment at another private hospital. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. 4. Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent is as follows:- The amount of compensation stated in the claim petition is high. The accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the claimant. The claimant has not possessed a valid and effective driving licence to drive the motor Cycle at the time of accident. The petitioner has violated the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and insurer is not at all liable to pay compensation. 5. The nature and the manner of the accident is wrongly mentioned in the petition. The first respondent is not responsible for the accident. The petitioner consumed alcohol and drove the Motor Cycle in a negligent manner and suddenly crossed the road and invited the accident. The age, nature of injuries, nature of treatment and occupation have to be proved by producing relevant documents. 6. The first respondent is not responsible for the accident. The petitioner consumed alcohol and drove the Motor Cycle in a negligent manner and suddenly crossed the road and invited the accident. The age, nature of injuries, nature of treatment and occupation have to be proved by producing relevant documents. 6. Three witness were examined and 9 documents were marked on the side of the petitioner. Two witnesses were examined and 1 document was marked on the side of the respondent. After hearing both side, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,40,700/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Forty Thousand and Seven Hundred Only) to be paid by the second respondent therein. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/insurer has preferred this appeal. 7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that it was the claimant who rode the two wheeler under the influence of alcohol and he invited the accident and the tribunal has wrongly fixed 90% negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler. A doctor from the Government Hospital was examined and he has specifically stated that at the time of the accident, the claimant had consumed alcohol. In the Accident register which was prepared immediately after the accident was marked as Ex.R2 wherein, it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner “breath smells of alcohol” and in the discharge summary of KMC marked as Ex.P2, it was stated that “patient was a in unconscious stage due to the influence of alcohol.” 8. The Tribunal, without analyzing the available evidence, has fixed 90% negligence on the part of the rider of the second respondent's vehicle. The Tribunal has erroneously applied multiplier 15 for calculating compensation for the disability. The doctor has wrongly and excessively assessed the disability of the claimant. The doctor has fixed 33% disability for head injury, 40% disability for the fracture and fixed 73% disability in total, which is too excessive. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following judgments. (i) United India Insurance Company Vs. The doctor has wrongly and excessively assessed the disability of the claimant. The doctor has fixed 33% disability for head injury, 40% disability for the fracture and fixed 73% disability in total, which is too excessive. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following judgments. (i) United India Insurance Company Vs. Veluchamy & another reported in 2005 (1) TNMAC -87, wherein it is stated as follows:- “Court must first form opinion from evidence and probabilities, of nature and extent of loss- Then, must decide what claimant would have earned if accident had not happened, allowing for future increase or decrease in rate of earnings-And how long loss will continue, whether incapacity is for life or for shorter period Court should also make estimate of amount which claimant could still earn in future, notwithstanding disabilities sustained by him.” (ii) Rajkumar Vs Ajaykumar & another reported in 2010 (2) TNMAC 581 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:- “Percentage of Permanent Disability with reference to whole body of a person cannot be assumed to be percentage of loss of Earning Capacity- Loss of Earning Capacity is something that will have to be assessed by Tribunal with reference to evidence in entirely- Same Permanent Disability may result in different percentage of loss of Earning Capacity in different persons depending upon nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors- Illustrated. Tribunal to ascertain what activities injured/Claimant could carry on in spite of Permanent disability and what he would not do- Where loss of Future Earning Capacity is taken as 100% or even more than 50% and compensation is awarded, need to award loss of Amenities in Life/Loss of Expectation of life may disappear and only nominal amount may have to be awarded -Otherwise there may be duplication in award of compensation. (iii) National Insurance Co Vs. Rayappan reported in 2011 (2) TNMAC Page 174 -MHC and the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:- “Injured aged 34 years suffered fracture of tibia and fibula or right leg-Movement of right Knee restricted to 10- Disability assessed by Doctor at 40%- Tribunal fixing disability at 25% and applying multiplier method awarded Rs.1,92,000/- towards Permanent Disability-Not proper-Tribunal in case of injury of this nature ought not to have awarded compensation by resorting to multiplier method.” (iv) National Insurance Co Vs. Ramesh & another reported in 2013 (2) TNMAC Page 583 – MHC “Tribunal applying Multiplier method awarding Loss of Future Income at Rs.1,55,000/- If proper-Contention that Tribunal applied Multiplier method on basis of evidence of Doctor, who did not treat Claimant and on assumption of likelihood of Claimant being thrown out of job- Considering young age Claimant as also fact of fast recovery, adopting Multiplier method, held not proper.” 10. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the first claimant alone was responsible for the accident and that the driver of the second respondent vehicle was not at all responsible for the accident. 11. Copy of the First Information Report was marked as Ex.P1. On the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and on the basis of Ex.P1, it is decided that the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.TN 45-AS-2434 was responsible for the accident. On the basis of Ex.R2, the tribunal has fixed 10% liability on the claimant on which is reasonable. 12. P.W.2/Dr.M.K.Muralidharan has fixed the disability at 33% and issued the disability certificate-Ex.P6. X-ray report was marked as Ex.P7. Discharge Summary was marked as Ex.P2. C.T. Scan was marked as Ex.P3. P.W. 3/Dr.R.Ravi has issued disability certificate-Ex.P8. He fixed the disability at 40% and X-ray report was marked as Ex.P9. On the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and on the basis of Ex.P2, P3 and P6 to P9, the tribunal has fixed the disability at 40%, which is reasonable. For 40% disability the claimant is entitled for Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation. For the period of treatment and for the period of rehabilitation the claimant is entitled for Rs.18,000/- towards temporary loss of income. Rs.10,000 is awarded for pain and sufferings. 13. Doctor's prescriptions were marked as Ex.P4, Medical Bills were marked as Ex.P5. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,83,686.70/- for medical bills and the same was rounded off as Rs.3,83,700/-. The tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- for transportation, Rs.5,000/- for extra Nourishment, Rs. 2,000/- for attendant charges. The said award of the tribunal are very reasonable. In total, the claimant is entitled to Rs.5,43,700/- as compensation. After deducting 10% towards his own negligence, the claimant is entitled for Rs.4,88,330/-. The same is rounded off to Rs.4,88,500/-. 14. The tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- for transportation, Rs.5,000/- for extra Nourishment, Rs. 2,000/- for attendant charges. The said award of the tribunal are very reasonable. In total, the claimant is entitled to Rs.5,43,700/- as compensation. After deducting 10% towards his own negligence, the claimant is entitled for Rs.4,88,330/-. The same is rounded off to Rs.4,88,500/-. 14. This Civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1053 of 2013 dated 28.02.2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub-ordinate Judge), Trichy, is hereby reduced from Rs.6,40,700/- to Rs.4,88,500/-. 15. The Appellant/ Insurance Company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.4,88,500/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Five Hundred only) along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date of deposit and cost within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not already deposited, less the amount deposited, if any. On such deposit being made, the first respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount, less the amount already withdrawn, if any. Excess amount if any, shall be refunded to the appellant/Insurance Company. The Claimant is not entitled for interest for the default period, if there is any default. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.