JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree, made in M.C.O.P.No.18 of 2018, dated 28.02.2019, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur at Pattukottai.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the awardmade in M.C.O.P.No.18 of 2018, dated 28.02.2019, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur at Pattukottai. 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 original M.C.O.P. Petition. 2. A brief substance of the petition, in M.C.O.P.No.18 of 2018 , is as follows:- On 28.09.2017, at about 7.00 pm., when the petitioner was travelling in a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-49-BJ-4108, keeping the extreme left side of the road, a Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-49-BJ-1813 came in a rash and negligence manner and hit against the two wheeler. The petitioner sustained injuries, he was taken to Pattukkottai Elangovan Hospital. The petitioner was working in a construction company as a Driver and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The petitioner claim a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation. 3. A brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.18 of 2018 , is as follows:- The Tractor was driven by its driver in a slow and cautious manner. It was the petitioner, who tried to cross the road, without observing the traffic. The accident has happened only due to the negligence of the driver. 4. Two (2) witnesses were examined and 14 documents were marked on the side of the petitioner. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the respondents. After considering both sides, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,83,237/- as compensation to be paid by the second respondent. 5. Against the award, the appellant- Insurance Company has filed this Appeal on the following grounds:- The Tribunal is wrong in awarding compensation by adopting multiplier method in the absence of medical evidence. The Tribunal failed to note that P.W.2, who assessed the disability, did not give evidence as to the impact of the disability, with reference to the nature of work. The Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation on the principle of Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability. The Tribunal failed to note that P.W.2, who assessed the disability, did not give evidence as to the impact of the disability, with reference to the nature of work. The Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation on the principle of Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability. Without any proof of employment of the first respondent, the Tribunal wrongly fixed the monthly income as Rs.12,000/- and added 40% towards future propsects. The Tribunal awarded excessive amount for pain and sufferings. The award is excessive. 6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that there was no evidence regarding functional disability. P.W.2 did not depose anything regarding functional disability and that adopting multiplier method is wrong on the part of the Tribunal. A judgment of this Court reported in 2020-1-TNMAC-617 (M.Chinnathambi V. S.Deepa) is cited, wherein, it is stated as follows:- “No evidence that the claimant suffered functional disability and hence, the multiplier methods is not applicable. Percetage method was rightly applied by the Tribunal. “ 7. Another judgment of this Court reported in 2022-2-TNMAC -567 (United India Insurance Co.Ltd., V. S.Sridhar) is cited, on the side of the appellant, wherein, it is stated as follows:- “For 33% disability due to fracture on the right leg. The Doctor, who assessed the disability, not treated the claimant and the Tribunal fixed 31% disability is to be proper. The application of multiplier method is not proper in the absence of proof of functional disability. Only percentage method applied by taking Rs.3,000/- per percentage and for 31% disability, Rs.,93,000/- awarded towards disability compensation" 8. On the side of the first respondent - claimant, it is stated that the Tibia bone was fractured. Doctor has examined the petitioner and he has assessed the disability as 40 %. There is malunion even after the treatment. The claimant was not able to drive any vehicle. He was not even able to stand without the help of others and the claimant is entitled to claim compensation by using multiplier method and the claimant is entitled to get compensation for future prospects. A judgment of this Court reported in 2019 - 0 - Supreme (Mad.) - 451 (Subramanian V. Mukund B. Desaik) is cited, wherein, this Court has held that applying multiplier method and adding 40% future prospects is reasonable. A judgment of this Court reported in 2019 - 0 - Supreme (Mad.) - 451 (Subramanian V. Mukund B. Desaik) is cited, wherein, this Court has held that applying multiplier method and adding 40% future prospects is reasonable. The relevant paragraphs are as follows:- “5.The learned counsel for the appellant further relying the evidence of the PW1 and PW3 Doctor, and argued that, it is rightly apply multiple method without adding 40% towards future prospects as per ruling of Prannay Sethi Constitution judgment and taking monthly income of Rs.3,000/- instead of granting Rs.5,000, since due to the impact of the injuries suffered by the appellant/claimant was not able to attend the masan works, hence pray for enhancement of compensation by applying multiplayer method with right multiplier of 18 instead of 17 and taking income of Rs.5,000/- with 40% future prospects. ....... 8.On appreciating the entire evidence of the appellant though he suffered injuries in the Head and Hip Joint and mal union and shorting of hip, partial amputation of Penis however tribunal taken only 50% partial disability and remaining 32% taken as functional disability is not correct without any basis, hence this Court accepts the arguments of the counsel for the appellant.“ 9. Another judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in 2022-0-Supreme (SC)-1180 (Parameshwarappa V. The Branch Manager) is cited, on the side of the first respondent-claimant, wherein, the Hon''ble Apex Court has adopted the multiplier method to assess the loss of income. 10. On the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and on the basis of F.I.R. - Ex.P1, copy of M.V.I. Report-Ex.P3-, the Tribunal has fixed the responsibility on the Tractor driver. The policy copy was marked as Ex.P5. The policy was inforce. There was no averment raised by the appellant disputing the liability. In the above circumstances, it is decided that the appellant is liable to pay compensation to the first respondent herein-claimant. 11. On the side of the claimant, it is stated that the claimant was working as a driver in Dinesh Construction Company. The driving licence of the claimant was marked as Ex.P7. Salary certificate was marked as Ex.P8. Except the petitioner, no other witness was examined to prove the income. In the above circumstances, notional income is fixed as Rs.12,000/- per month. 12. The age of the claimant was mentioned as 21 years in the claim petition. Disability certificate was marked as Ex.P13. Salary certificate was marked as Ex.P8. Except the petitioner, no other witness was examined to prove the income. In the above circumstances, notional income is fixed as Rs.12,000/- per month. 12. The age of the claimant was mentioned as 21 years in the claim petition. Disability certificate was marked as Ex.P13. Discharge summary was marked as Ex.P6. X-Ray was marked as Ex.P14. P.W.2 has deposed that the claimant is having 40% disability and that there was malunion of bones and on that basis, P.W.2 has assessed the disability as 40%. P.W.2 has failed to depose that the claimant could not continue his driving work. Considering the nature of the injuries, it is decided that the claimant is entitled to loss of income by applying multiplier method. For 40% disability (Rs.12,000/-X 40/100= Rs.4,800/-), the claimant is entitled to Rs.10,36,800/- (Rs.4,800/- X 12 X18) towards loss of income. 13. On the basis of the evidence of P.W.2, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses, which is reasonable. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards transport expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.40,000/- towards pain and sufferings, which are all reasonable. 14. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,900/- towards attender charges and the same is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-.The Tribunal has awarded Rs.52,817/- towards future medical expenses and the same is rounded off to Rs.52,820/-. 15. The total compensation is calculated as follows:- Loss of income Rs.10,36,800/- Pain and sufferings Rs. 40,000/- Attender charges Rs. 10,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 25,000/- Future medical expenses Rs. 52,820/- Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Total compensation Rs.11,74,620/- 16. This Appeal is partly allowed. The compensation is reduced from Rs. 15,83,237/-- to Rs.11,74,620/-. (i) The appellant herein - Insurance Company, is directed to deposit the entire compensation of Rs.11,74,620/-. (if not already deposited) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and with costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Excess amount, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant – Insurance Company. (ii) On such deposit being made, the claimant is is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount with accrued interest and costs, on filing proper petition before the Tribunal, less any amount, if already withdrawn by him. Excess amount, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant – Insurance Company. (ii) On such deposit being made, the claimant is is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount with accrued interest and costs, on filing proper petition before the Tribunal, less any amount, if already withdrawn by him. The claimant is not entitled for interest for the default period, if there is any. No costs.