The main legal point established is the application of the multiplier method in assessing loss of income and the need for concrete evidence to support the compensation awarded.

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the Judgment and decree dated 15.02.2006 made in M.C.O.P.No.87 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Cuddalore.

2. The background facts in a nutshell, are, as follows:- A.Ramesh, the claimant, met with a motor vehicle accident that took place on 29.10.2004 at about 04.30 p.m. The claimant, at the time of accident, was riding his bicycle near Kannarapettai Main Road, at that time, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-31 D-3636, belonging to the second respondent herein, came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and also high speed and hit the claimant's bicycle. Due to the same, the claimant sustained fracture and multiple grievous injuries. Immediately, he was given first aid at Cuddalore Abirami Hospital and Cuddalore Government Hospital. The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- before the Tribunal. The said bus was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, who resisted the claim. On pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- a) On whose negligence the accident had occurred? b) At the time of the accident, whether the bus was insured with the appellant-Insurance company? Had the driver of the bus possessed a valid driving licence or not? c) Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation? If so, how much?" After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,78,790/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The details of the compensation are as under:-Permanent disability Rs. 3,67,200/- Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Transport charges Rs. 1,000/- Medical Expenses Rs. 590/- ----------------

Total... Rs. 3,78,790/- ----------------- Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal wrong in holding that the driver of the bus caused the accident. It is also submitted that the award of the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant, without basis and justification, and that the Tribunal is wrong in adopting the multiplier method in the case of injury and that therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents available on record. On the side of the claimant, witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 were marked. On the side the of the respondents, neither a documentary evidence was marked nor a witness was examined. P.W.1 is the claimant/first respondent herein. P.W.2 is Dr. Raju. Ex.P1 is the xerox copy of First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the xerox copy of Insurance policy. Ex.P3 is the xerox copy of R.C. book. Ex.P4 is the xerox copy of driving licence. Ex.P5 is the xerox copy of route permit. Ex.P6 is the xerox copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's report. Ex.P7 is the xerox copy of accident register. Ex.P8 is the xerox copy of the discharge summary. Ex.P9 are the doctor's prescriptions. Ex.P10 is the Medical bills (Rs.592/-). Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 are the salary certificates. Ex.P13 is the claimant's identity card. Ex.P14 is the disability certificate. Ex.P15 and Ex.P16 are the X-rays. Considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred