JUDGMENT (Common Prayer: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.20 of 2009, on the file of the Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Gingee.) Common Judgment: V.M. Velumani, J. 1. C.M.A.No.1632 of 2021 has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company questioning the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.20 of 2009, on the file of the Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Gingee. C.M.A.No.1386 of 2022 has been filed by the appellant-claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation granted by the Tribunal in the said award. 2. Both the appeals arise out of the same accident and same award and hence, disposed of by this common judgment. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the claim petition. 4. The claimant, represented by his mother viz., Sivakami, filed M.C.O.P. No.20 of 2009, on the file of the Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Gingee, claiming a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 19.09.2008. 5. 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 Tipper Lorry owned by the 1st respondent and directed the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.21,79,313/- as compensation to the claimant. 6. Questioning the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the said judgment and decree dated 20.11.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.20 of 2009, the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company has come out with C.M.A.No.1632 of 2021. 7. Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed C.M.A.No.1386 of 2022, seeking enhancement of compensation. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company contended that in the accident, the claimant has not sustained any scheduled injury. In such circumstances, the Tribunal erroneously accepted the 65% disability assessed by the Medical Board, which is on higher side and adopted multiplier method in awarding compensation towards disability. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company contended that in the accident, the claimant has not sustained any scheduled injury. In such circumstances, the Tribunal erroneously accepted the 65% disability assessed by the Medical Board, which is on higher side and adopted multiplier method in awarding compensation towards disability. As per Ex.R1 – clarification obtained from the Apollo Hospital, it is seen that out of the actual medical expenses of Rs.5,60,958/-, the claimant has availed a sum of Rs.1,99,999.79/- towards reimbursement from the Star Health Insurance and paid only a sum of Rs.3,60,958/-. The Tribunal failed to note that the amounts mentioned at Serial Nos.13, 15 & 16 of Ex.P7 are only estimation bills and not the expenses incurred by the claimant. The Tribunal ought to have considered the evidence of R.W.1 – Doctor and Ex.R1, which is the actual medical bill, for the expenses incurred by the claimant. The Tribunal erred in taking into consideration Ex.P7 in total, without excluding the estimation bills. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of pecuniary loss, medical expenses, loss of amenities and pain and suffering are excessive and prayed for reducing the same and dismissal of C.M.A.No.1386 of 2022, filed by the claimant. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant contended that in the accident, the claimant sustained multiple injuries, fracture in his femur bone and has taken treatment as in-patient at Hospital for about 52 days. The Medical Board has assessed and certified that the claimant suffered 65% locomotor disability. At the time of accident, the claimant was working as a Mason and was earning a sum of Rs.500 - Rs.600/- per day and not less than Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he had lost his earning capacity completely. The Tribunal having found that the claimant lost his earning capacity totally, erred in awarding only a meagre sum of Rs.9,82,800/- towards future loss of earning. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is meagre. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meagre and prayed for enhancement of the compensation and dismissal of C.M.A.No.1632 of 2021 filed by the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent- Insurance Company as well as the claimant and perused the entire materials available on record. 11. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meagre and prayed for enhancement of the compensation and dismissal of C.M.A.No.1632 of 2021 filed by the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent- Insurance Company as well as the claimant and perused the entire materials available on record. 11. From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the case of the claimant that in the accident, he sustained fracture in his femur bone apart from multiple injuries all over the body and took treatment as in-patient at the Apollo Hospital from 19.09.2008 to 09.11.2008, for a period of 52 days. He has marked the discharge summary as Ex.P5 to prove the same. The Medical Board has assessed and certified that the claimant sustained 65% locomotive disability. Due to the injuries sustained, the claimant is bedridden and is depending upon others to meet even his day-to-day activities. The Tribunal considering the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, which is marked as Ex.C1 and the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, accepted the percentage of disability sustained by the claimant as 65% and adopted multiplier method in awarding compensation towards loss of earning capacity. The same is in order. It is the case of the claimant, that at the time of accident, he was working as a Mason and was earning a sum of Rs.500 – Rs.600/- per day. He has marked Ex.P8 to prove his avocation. In the absence of any documentary evidence with regard to income of the claimant, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as notional income of the claimant. The accident is of the year 2008. Considering the year of accident and nature of work done by the claimant, the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.8,000/- per month, including future prospects. The claimant was aged 22 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC Supreme Court [Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another], rightly applied the multiplier 18'. Hence, fixing the monthly income at Rs.8,000/-, including future prospects and applying multiplier 18', the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of earning capacity for 65% disability is modified to Rs.11,23,200/- [Rs.8,000/- x 12 x 18 x 65%]. 12. Hence, fixing the monthly income at Rs.8,000/-, including future prospects and applying multiplier 18', the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of earning capacity for 65% disability is modified to Rs.11,23,200/- [Rs.8,000/- x 12 x 18 x 65%]. 12. As regards the grounds raised by the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company on the medical expenses incurred by the claimant, on a perusal of Ex.P7 – medical bills which amounts to Rs.11,60,003.40/-, it is seen that the Serial Nos.13, 15 & 16 amounting to sum of Rs.78,434,70/-, Rs.2,52,142.42/- and Rs.1,92,057.88/- respectively are only estimation bills and not the medical expenses incurred by the claimant and Serial No.53 worth Rs.639/- is the amount returned by the Pharmacy to the claimant. Also, as per Serial No.14, a sum of Rs.1,99,999.79/- has been remitted by the Star Health Insurance to the claimant towards insurance. In addition to this, the Tribunal has rightly found that some of the bills dated 02.12.2008, 09.11.2008, 12.11.2008 and 07.01.2009 worth Rs.1,000/-, Rs.500/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.822/- respectively are not in order. Hence, after deducting the amounts mentioned in the Serial Nos.13, 14, 15 & 16 from the total sum of Rs.11,60,003.40/-, the claimant is entitled to only Rs.4,33,407.61/- [Rs.11,60,003.40 – 7,26,595.79/-] towards medical expenses as per Ex.P7. As per Ex.P9 – medical bills, the claimant has incurred a sum of Rs.49,831/- towards medical expenses, as rightly held by the Tribunal. Hence, the amount granted by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is modified to Rs.4,83,238.61/- [Rs.4,33,407.61 + Rs.49,831], which is rounded off to Rs.4,83,240/-. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under 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 1. Loss of earning capacity 9,82,800/- 11,23,200/- Enhanced 2. Pain and sufferings 50,000/- 50,000/- Confirmed 3. Extra nourishment 20,000/- 20,000/- Confirmed 4. Attendant charges 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed 5. Medical expenses 10,06,513/- 4,83,240/- Reduced 6. Transportation charges 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed 7. Loss of amenities 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/- Confirmed Total 21,79,313/- 17,96,440/- Reduced by Rs.3,82,873/- 13. In the result, C.M.A.No.1632 of 2021 is partly allowed in respect of the head - medical expenses and C.M.A.No.1386 of 2022 is partly allowed in respect of the head - loss of earning capacity. Medical expenses 10,06,513/- 4,83,240/- Reduced 6. Transportation charges 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed 7. Loss of amenities 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/- Confirmed Total 21,79,313/- 17,96,440/- Reduced by Rs.3,82,873/- 13. In the result, C.M.A.No.1632 of 2021 is partly allowed in respect of the head - medical expenses and C.M.A.No.1386 of 2022 is partly allowed in respect of the head - loss of earning capacity. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.21,79,313/- is modified and reduced to Rs.17,96,440/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, excluding 865 days as per the order made in I.A.No.342 of 2015. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount, now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.20 of 2009. On such deposit, the claimant 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, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the excess amount, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P. No.20 of 2009, if the entire award amount has already been deposited by them. It is made clear that if the claimant has already withdrawn the entire award amount, the 2nd respondent- Insurance Company is not entitled to recover the same from the claimant. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.