JUDGMENT : T.V.THAMILSELVI, J. Challenging the impugned award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub-Court No.1, Small Causes Court, Chennai in MCOP No.3176 of 2016, dated 22.11.2023, the appellant/2nd respondent insurance company preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2.The case of the 1st respondent/petitioner is that on 09.04.2015 at about 06.30 a.m. while he was walking along the Ambattur Road, near Sai Apartment towards Canara Bank bus stop, at that time, a car bearing Regn. No. TN-39 AV- 8554 was coming from the same direction, dashed him and caused an accident. Due to which, the he sustained grievous injuries, for which he underwent treatment in the hospital. Under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal seeking for payment of compensation of Rs.80,00,000/-. 3.The Tribunal on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the rider of the 2nd respondent. Having come to such a conclusion, the Tribunal fixed the total compensation payable at Rs.12,62,000/- under various heads as follows: 4.The above compensation was directed to be paid with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 5.The Insurance Company aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal has filed the present appeal before this Court. 6. The learned counsel for appellant argues that the medical records relied on by the 1st respondent not disclosed that he has sustained loss of income due to the injury sustained in the alleged accident said to be happened on 09.04.2015. Further, he would also pointed out that the F.I.R. was lodged only on 27.06.2015 nearly about 1 ½ months later and the medical records Ex.P3, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 not disclosed that the treatment took by the 1st respondent due to the injury sustained in a road accident. But the tribunal erroneously fixed the liability upon the appellant Insurance Company by applying multiplier method and awarded compensation. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the findings of the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for Cross-objector/petitioner argues that immediately after the accident, he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Tiruvallur and for the serious injury sustained in eye, he was referred to Government Hospital, Chennai. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the findings of the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for Cross-objector/petitioner argues that immediately after the accident, he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Tiruvallur and for the serious injury sustained in eye, he was referred to Government Hospital, Chennai. Thereafter, he took further treatment and due to the said accident, he lost his vision. Therefore, the Tribunal adopted multiplier method and granted the award as such is reasonable one and it needs no interference. 8. Heard and considered rival submissions made by both learned counsel for appellant as well as respondents and perused materials available on record. 9. Considering both side submissions, it reveals that as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for appellant, F.I.R. was lodged only on 27.06.2015, however the accident said to be happened on 09.04.2015, thereafter only, rough sketch was preferred. But, to prove the accident happened on 09.04.2015, there is no direct primary record produced on the said of 1st respondent/petitioner. They have relied the A.R. copy dated 11.04.2015, wherein he was treated only as out-patient, but subsequently, he was admitted in the hospital on 16.04.2015. According to the petitioner, due to the alleged injury sustained in the accident, he was suffered with serious injury in his eye. Therefore he was admitted in the Government Hospital, thereafter he was referred to Government Hospital, Chennai for further treatment with regard to the vision problem in the eye. But, even in the discharge summary, he took treatment in the Government Hospital for eight days, but there is no record for the injury sustained in the road accident, however, he had vision problem, for that, he took treatment. As per the F.I.R. allegation, there was an accident happened on 09.04.2015 and he would have immediately informed to the police but he suffered with pain in the eye, for which, he was admitted in the hospital and subsequently, the F.I.R. was lodged. Therefore, this Court is inclined to accept the arguments advanced on the side of appellant. Accordingly, the multiplier method applied by the tribunal as such is erroneous one. However, the 1st respondent/petitioner suffered with grievous injury, considering that the disability is arrived at 40% and a sum of Rs.5000/- per percentage is awarded. He was aged about 52 years and the accident was happened in the year 2015. Accordingly, the multiplier method applied by the tribunal as such is erroneous one. However, the 1st respondent/petitioner suffered with grievous injury, considering that the disability is arrived at 40% and a sum of Rs.5000/- per percentage is awarded. He was aged about 52 years and the accident was happened in the year 2015. Therefore, on considering the cost of living, this Court is inclined to fix the notional income as Rs.12,000/- per month and loss of income is granted for three months. Towards pain and sufferings, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is enhanced, towards transportation a sum of Rs.10,000/- is enhanced and a sum of Rs.40,000/- is enhanced for attender charges. The compensation that has been fixed under the other heads are unaltered. 10. Both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as well as Cross-Objections tried jointly and in the light of the above discussion, the compensation awarded by the tribunal is modified as follows: 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the appellant insurance company is partly allowed and modified. Furthermore, the Cross- objections filed by the claimant is not sustainable in view of findings rendered in the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Accordingly, the Cross-objections is dismissed. There shall be a direction to the appellant Insurance Company to deposit the entire compensation, less the amount already deposited, together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this judgement. The other directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to the mode of payment of compensation remains unaltered. It goes without saying that the enhanced compensation that is paid by the Insurance Company can be recovered from the owner of the vehicle as was ordered by the Tribunal. 12.Furthermore, the appellant insurance company had filed a petition in C.M.P.No. 17417 of 2024 seeking to receive the additional documents dated 28.03.2015, 31.03.2015 and March 2015 as additional evidence in the above C.M.A.. The learned counsel for appellant would submit that since it is a first appeal, they have filed the documents to apprise the facts, but no fault of appellant, they were prevented because of unforeseen reasons in marking the document. Hence, he prayed to mark the said documents. The learned counsel for appellant would submit that since it is a first appeal, they have filed the documents to apprise the facts, but no fault of appellant, they were prevented because of unforeseen reasons in marking the document. Hence, he prayed to mark the said documents. Considering his submissions, this Court is inclined to allow the petition and to mark the additional documents (hospital records) dated 28.03.2015, 31.03.2015 and March 2015 as Ex.B11, Ex.B12 and Ex.B13. Accordingly, the petition in C.M.P.No. 17417 of 2024 is ordered. 13.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.17413 of 2024 is closed.