JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2021, made in M.C.O.P. No.694 of 2017, on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puducherry.) V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2021, made in M.C.O.P. No.694 of 2017, on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puducherry. 2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No.694 of 2017, on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puducherry. The 1st respondent filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 21.10.2016. 3. According to the 1st respondent, on the date of accident, at about 00.30 hours, when he was traveling in a Innova Car bearing Registration No.TN-32-T-9999, owned by the 2nd respondent, along Villupuram to Pondicherry NH 45 Road, near Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Valavanur, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed on the backside of the bullock cart and capsized the vehicle. The accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the car owned by the 2nd respondent. In the accident, the 1st respondent sustained grievous injuries and hence, filed the said claim petition, claiming compensation against the 2nd respondent and appellant, as owner and insurer of the said vehicle respectively. 4. The 2nd respondent, owner of the offending vehicle, remained exparte before the Tribunal. 5. The appellant, insurer of the vehicle, filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the 1st respondent in the claim petition. According to the appellant-Insurance Company, at the time of accident, the 2nd respondent permitted the driver of the vehicle to drive the same without possessing valid driving license, permit and insurance and hence, violated the policy conditions. For such violation of policy conditions, the appellant- Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent has claimed compensation under permanent disability and loss of earning, which if awarded, would amount to awarding compensation twice towards same head. For such violation of policy conditions, the appellant- Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent has claimed compensation under permanent disability and loss of earning, which if awarded, would amount to awarding compensation twice towards same head. In any event, the total compensation claimed by the 1st respondent is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1, examined one Chandrasekar, Panchayat Secretary as P.W.2, Dr.Muthaiyan as P.W.3 and marked 17 documents as Exs.P1 to P17. The appellant-Insurance Company examined one Lio as R.W.1, Dr.Raju as R.W.2, Venkatesan, Regional Transport Officer as R.W.3 and marked 3 documents as Exs.R1 to R3. The disability certificate was marked as Court document, Ex.C1. 7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the vehicle owned by the 2nd respondent and directed the appellant as insurer of the said vehicle to pay a sum of Rs.61,90,000/- as compensation to the 1st respondent. 8. Challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 23.02.2021, made in M.C.O.P. No.694 of 2017, the appellant- Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in the absence of any treatment record, the Tribunal erred in granting compensation based on the report of the Medical Board. The 100% disability assessed by Medical Board is not in accordance with the Guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. The amounts granted for loss of earning and attendant charges are excessive. The Tribunal, without any evidence and basis, erroneously granted compensation for future medical expenses and for transportation. Similarly, the compensation granted by the Tribunal for pain and sufferings, loss of marital bliss and loss of expectation of life are unreasonable and unjustified. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal and allowing the appeal. 9(a). In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on the judgment reported in 2001 ACJ 179 [M.S.Grewal & another Vs. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal and allowing the appeal. 9(a). In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on the judgment reported in 2001 ACJ 179 [M.S.Grewal & another Vs. Deep Chand Sood and others] and submitted that judicial precedents have relevance with regard to principles of law, but the quantum of compensation granted has to be considered based on the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no binding precedent for awarding quantum of compensation. The compensation is to be assessed considering the facts of each case taking into consideration the placement in the society and financial status of the person. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent made submissions in support of the award of the Tribunal and further contended that the 1st respondent had proved that the disability suffered by him is 100% and P.W.3-Doctor has stated that the 1st respondent has no control over his normal activities, including passing urine and faeces. The Tribunal, considering the materials placed before it properly, passed the award following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2020 1 TNMAC SC [Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand and others] and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Though notice has been served on the 2nd respondent and his name is printed in the cause list, there is no representation for him either in person or through counsel. 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company as well as the 1st respondent and perused the entire materials available on record. 13. From the materials on record, it is seen that there is no dispute that the 1st respondent has suffered 100% disability. He cannot do any work without assistance of other person. P.W.3 Doctor has deposed based on the report of the Medical Board to the effect that the 1st respondent was examined by the Medical Board consisting of specialists in Orthopedic and Neurology. The Panchayat Secretary, who was examined as P.W.2 also deposed that due to the disability suffered by the 1st respondent, the Medical Board examined the 1st respondent in the Court itself as he could not walk. The Tribunal also recorded that when the 1st respondent came to the Court, he could not stand and gave evidence by sitting. The Panchayat Secretary, who was examined as P.W.2 also deposed that due to the disability suffered by the 1st respondent, the Medical Board examined the 1st respondent in the Court itself as he could not walk. The Tribunal also recorded that when the 1st respondent came to the Court, he could not stand and gave evidence by sitting. P.W.3 Doctor was not cross-examined by the counsel for the appellant. On the other hand, the Court had put a specific question to P.W.3 Doctor as to whether the 1st respondent can do any one of the basic necessities of life, especially passing urine and faeces, P.W.3 answered that “definitely he cannot do”. P.W.3 also deposed that his motion has to be removed from his anus by hand by others. There is no contra evidence to the evidence of P.W.3. The Tribunal, considering the state of the 1st respondent as observed in the open Court as well as the evidence of P.W.3, has awarded compensation for loss of income by adopting multiplier method for 100% disability as assessed by the Medical Board. There is no error in the award of the Tribunal for adopting multiplier method. 14. It is the case of the 1st respondent that he was running a Chicken Centre & Tiffin Centre and was getting monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. To prove the avocation, he has produced License issued by the Panchayat and marked the same as Exs.P5 to P7 and also examined Panchayat Secretary as P.W.2. The 1st respondent has not produced any material to prove the income earned by him. The Tribunal, considering the nature of business, fixed the notional income of the 1st respondent as Rs.10,000/- per month. The accident is of the year 2016. The notional income fixed by the Tribunal is not excessive. The 1st respondent was aged 39 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the age of the deceased, has granted 40% enhancement towards future prospects and applied multiplier 15', following the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC) [National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others] and 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC (Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another), awarded a sum of Rs.25,20,000/- (Rs.10,000/- + 4000 [Rs.10,000/- X 40%] X 12 X 15 X 100%) towards loss of income by adopting multiplier method for 100% disability. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others] and 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC (Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another), awarded a sum of Rs.25,20,000/- (Rs.10,000/- + 4000 [Rs.10,000/- X 40%] X 12 X 15 X 100%) towards loss of income by adopting multiplier method for 100% disability. 14(i). The 1st respondent has marked the out-patient record as Ex.P4 and Accident Register as Ex.P9. According to the 1st respondent, he has taken treatment as in-patient at JIPMER Hospital, Puducherry, from 21.10.2016 to 31.12.2016, for a period of 72 days. The appellant has not disputed that the 1st respondent took treatment as in-patient for 72 days in JIPMER Hospital. The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rs.500/- x 2 x 70 days) towards attendant charges during treatment period at the rate of Rs.500/- each per day for two attenders for the period of 70 days. The said amount granted by the Tribunal is not excessive. In addition to the said amount, the Tribunal considering the nature of injuries, age, evidence of P.W.3 Doctor and judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2020 (1) TNMAC SC (referred to above), granted a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rs.10,000/- X 12 X 15) for attendant charges at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month each for two attenders by applying multiplier 15'. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company that each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of the particular case and judicial precedents have relevance only with regard to principles of law and quantum of compensation has to be fixed based on each case, has considerable force and is acceptable. Considering the facts of the present case, it would be just and reasonable to grant a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month for attendant charges to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent was aged 39 years at the time of accident and the multiplier applicable is 15'. Hence, the amount of Rs.18,70,000/- (Rs.18,00,000/- + Rs.70,000/-) awarded by the Tribunal towards attendant charges is modified and reduced to Rs.9,70,000/- {Rs.70,000/- + Rs.9,00,000/- [Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 15]}. 14(ii). The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards medical expenses & future medical expenses and Rs.1,50,000/- towards transportation charges. The 1st respondent has not filed any document to prove that he spent some amount for medical expenses, he requires future medical expenses and also for transportation. 14(ii). The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards medical expenses & future medical expenses and Rs.1,50,000/- towards transportation charges. The 1st respondent has not filed any document to prove that he spent some amount for medical expenses, he requires future medical expenses and also for transportation. In view of the same, the amounts granted by the Tribunal under the above heads are excessive. Considering the fact that the 1st respondent is bedridden, he may suffer bedsore and may require some amount for future medical expenses, the amounts granted by the Tribunal towards medical expenses & future medical expenses is reduced from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- and the amount granted towards transportation is reduced from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of injuries suffered by the 1st respondent, the amount granted by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings is reduced from Rs.7,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-. In view of the compensation being granted by the Tribunal towards loss of income for 100% disability by adopting multiplier method, the amount granted for loss of expectation of life is set aside. For the loss of marital bliss suffered by the 1st respondent, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of consortium. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium and loss of income for 100% disability 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 1. Loss of income for 100% disability 25,20,000/- 25,20,000/- Confirmed 2. Medical expenses & future medical expenses 6,00,000/- 3,00, 000/- Reduced 3. Attendant charges 18,70,000/-(18,00,000/- + 70,000/-) 9,70,000/-(9,00,000/- + 70,000/-) Reduced 4. Transport charges 1,50,000/- 50,000/- Reduced 5. Pain and sufferings 7,00,000/- 2,00,000/- Reduced 6. Loss of consortium 1,50,000/- 1,50,000/- Confirmed 7. Loss of expectation of life 2,00,000/- - Set aside Total 61,90,000/- 41,90,000/- Reduced by 20,00,000/- The Tribunal has granted compensation along with interest at the rate of 5.5% per annum. Considering the raise in cost of living, the 1st respondent is entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 15. Loss of consortium 1,50,000/- 1,50,000/- Confirmed 7. Loss of expectation of life 2,00,000/- - Set aside Total 61,90,000/- 41,90,000/- Reduced by 20,00,000/- The Tribunal has granted compensation along with interest at the rate of 5.5% per annum. Considering the raise in cost of living, the 1st respondent is entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.61,90,000/- is reduced to Rs.41,90,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The 1st respondent is not entitled to any interest for the default period i.e., from 04.01.2019 to 26.08.2019. 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, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.694 of 2017. On such deposit, the 1st 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. The appellant/Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the excess amount lying in the deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.694 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Puducherry, if the entire award amount determined by the Tribunal has already been deposited by them. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.