Judgment :- 1. The two appeals have been preferred by the claimant as well as the Pallavan Transport Corporation and have arisen from the same judgment in O.P. No. 247 of 1981 dated 30.4.1983 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Chingleput. The Appellant in C.M.A. No. 483 of 1984 is the claimant in O.P. No. 247 of 1981. The General Manager, Pallavan Transport Corporation. Madras-2 the first Respondent in the said claim petition, has preferred C.M.A. No. 45 of 1984. 2. On 17.10.1980, the accident has taken place in which the Pallavan Transport Corporation Bus bearing No. TMN 160 was hit by the Railway Engine at Egmore Railway level crossing. On account of the accident, the appellant in C.M.A. No. 483 of 1984 by name A.K. Ananthachari who was travelling in the bus, sustained injuries. He was hospitalised from 17.10.1980 to 23.12.1980. He took private treatment also till the end of June 1981. Only on 1.7.1981 he was able to attend his office. At the time of accident, he was serving as the Additional Assistant Divisional Engineer in the Electricity Department. As the accident took place on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus as well as the driver of the railway engine, he claimed compensation of Rs. 1,71,300/- from both the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras-3 as well as the General Manager, Pallavan Transport Corporation, Madras-2, impleading them as Respondents 2 and 1 respectively. 3. The aforesaid A.K. Ananthachari though took treatment from the hospital and privately, the accident had resulted in permanent disablement, in the leg to the extent of 30% as certified by the qualified Doctor. After considering the evidence of the Appellant, the doctor and the documents produced by the Appellant Bus. Exs. A-79 to A-108, the Tribunal found that the accident took place on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of both the bus and the railway engine. However, he fixed the compensation to the appellant Ananthachari at Rs. 10,000/- and apportioned it into two halves to be paid by both the Railway and the Pallavan Transport Corporation. However, the Tribunal found that it has no jurisdiction to award the compensation as against the Railways. Therefore, he dismissed the claim against the Railway and confirmed the damages to the half and the same to be recovered from the Pallavan Transport Corporation. However, the Tribunal found that it has no jurisdiction to award the compensation as against the Railways. Therefore, he dismissed the claim against the Railway and confirmed the damages to the half and the same to be recovered from the Pallavan Transport Corporation. Not satisfied with the order of the Tribunal, with reference to the liability on the part of the Railway and the quantum awarded, the said Ananthachari has filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A. No. 483 of 1984. 4. The second respondent namely, the General Manager, Southern Railway has not preferred any appeal. The General Manager, Pallavan Transport Corporation (Metro) Madras-2 has preferred C.M.A. No. 45 of 1984 challenging the findings with reference to the liability on the part of the Corporation and the quantum. 5. Learned Counsel Mr. P. Veeraghavan appearing for the appellant in C.M.A. No. 483 of 1984 vehemently contended that the Tribunal was wrong in rejecting the claim of the appellant. He also contended that the quantum of the damage fixed at Rs. 5,000/- to the Pallavan Transport Corporation is also very low. The Tribunal has not considered a vital aspect, namely the permanent disablement sustained by the appellant Ananthachari. 6. As against the said contentions, learned counsel for the Pallavan Transport Corporation Appellant in C.M.A. No. 45 of 1984, submitted that the appellant Ananthachari had not suffered any monetary loss except that he suffered the expenses for medical treatment and transportation. In other respects, he has been paid full salary and there and there was no change in the service conditions. He retired after serving full term of 58 years. Therefore, there is no necessity for awarding compensation except to the extent of the medical expenses. 7. It has been brought to my notice that as against the very same judgment of the Tribunal, which is a common one, relating to number of claim petitions, several appeals preferred were disposed of already by a learned single Judge of this Court on 15.6.1992 in C.M.A. Nos. 41, 42, 43 etc. of 1984. Learned Single Judge has set aside the finding of the Tribunal with reference to the liability on the part of the Railway. Learned Judge has made the Railway also liable to pay half of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8. 41, 42, 43 etc. of 1984. Learned Single Judge has set aside the finding of the Tribunal with reference to the liability on the part of the Railway. Learned Judge has made the Railway also liable to pay half of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8. In view of the above said judgment of the learned single Judge, both the learned Counsel in the two appeals have confined their arguments with reference to the quantum fixed by the Tribunal as against the Pallavan Transport Corporation. 9. In view of the Judgment of this Court in C.M.A. Nos. 41, 42, 43 etc. of 1984 dated 15.6.1992, there is no necessity for going into the question of liability as against the Railway. Even though in both the appeals, the General Manager, Southern Railway was impleaded as party respondent and has been served and memo of appearance has been filed, on behalf of the second respondent, no arguments were advanced at the time of hearing of these appeals. In the circumstances, there is no necessity to go into the question of liability on the part of the Railway to the extent of one half of the damages that is to be fixed in this proceedings. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant in C.M.A. No. 483 of 1984 has also conceded that in view of the findings of the learned single Judge in the aforesaid batch of appeals, relating to the apportionment of the compensation to one half, he is not challenging the said findings. He has confined his arguments only with reference to the quantum fixed by the Tribunal. 11. The Tribunal has considered the quantum of the compensation claimed by the appellant Ananthachari in paragraph 26 of its judgment. I do not find any detailed discussion on each item of claims made by the appellants. He has also not awarded separate amount of compensation for the permanent disablement sustained by the appellant Ananthachari. He has simply stated that considering the age of the appellant-petitioner, the future promotion, mental agony, nature of injuries, purchasing medicines, absence from duty for nine months. Rs. 20,000/- is fixed as the amount of compensation. 12. The appellate-Petitioner has produced Exs. A-70 to Ex. 106 showing the medical expenses of Rs. 5,300/-. Apart from this, he has stated that he has taken treatment from private Doctors. He has produced Ex. Rs. 20,000/- is fixed as the amount of compensation. 12. The appellate-Petitioner has produced Exs. A-70 to Ex. 106 showing the medical expenses of Rs. 5,300/-. Apart from this, he has stated that he has taken treatment from private Doctors. He has produced Ex. A-87 containing a statement of expenses for the medical treatment from 1980 October 2 to December 1981 at Rs. 15,96.52. Some of the items are not supported by bills or vouchers. Even though 76 the entire amount cannot be accepted as correct, some amount has to be accepted, for his treatment outside the hospital. Had he recovered fully in December 1986, after taking treatment in the hospital, he would have attended office immediately. But it is an admitted fact that he attended the office only in July 1981. Therefore, it can be presumed that even after the treatment in the hospital, he was taking treatment outside. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- can be awarded for the same. This will be in addition to the sum of Rs. 5,300/- which he spent while he was in hospital. 13. As regards loss of income which he is said to have suffered during the medical treatment, there is no material on record to show the same. There is also no evidence to show that he was not paid salary during his medical treatment. It is also evident that he had medical reimbursement and therefore. I am not in a position to find that the appellant-Ananthachari suffered any monetary loss by way of loss of salary during the period of his treatment in the hospital and outside. 14. Even though there is some argument with reference to the inability to serve in the same Department where he was serving before the accident, in the evidence he has admitted that he was not deprived of his promotion and he retired only after full term of service at the age of 58. Therefore no damage can be awarded on that account. 15. However, it is in evidence that he has suffered permanent disablement to the extent of 30%. It is also alleged that his left leg had been shortened to an extent of 2 inches. His normal walking has been seriously affected. The certificate issued by the Doctor also shows that he is not in a position to use Indian Toilet nor he can sit comfortably for taking meals. It is also alleged that his left leg had been shortened to an extent of 2 inches. His normal walking has been seriously affected. The certificate issued by the Doctor also shows that he is not in a position to use Indian Toilet nor he can sit comfortably for taking meals. Therefore, learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that substantial amount of damages should be awarded for this. Even though there is no fixed criteria or guidelines for awarding compensation to the permanent disablement suffered by a person in a motor accident, a reading of the following decisions throws some light in estimating the compensation in such cases. 16. In Avtar Singh v. Akal Bus and Transport Co. (P) Ltd. , (1985 ACJ 568) the permanent disablement of the claimant was to the extent of 30%. In the said case, for the said permanent disablement in the right lower leg, the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- from Rs. 11,000/-. 17. In Vijay Singh v. Haryana Roadways and another (AIR 1990 Punjab & Haryana 334), a tailor who was thrown out from the bus in a Motor Accident, suffered 35% disablement i.e., shortening of legs. He has been awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000/- as compensation. He was aged only 22 years at the time of accident. 18. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Jhansi v. Jaggit Singh (AIR 1991 Allahabad 84), a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, laid down certain criteria for fixing quantum of compensation in a case of permanent disablement. In paragraph 13, learned Judges have held as follows:— “According to the ruling of this Court, the claimant in this case is entitled to compensation for the amenities of life. If the normal longevity of the claimant is fixed at 65, the claimant would be entitled to some amount on the score of amenities of life for a period of 10 years and also for the inconvenience hardship, discomfiture, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life for that period. Since the claimants left leg has been cut away, therefore, he has become disabled for ever. After retirement he would remain Incapacitated to add his income as a normal man and on this count, he is entitled to some amount” 19. Since the claimants left leg has been cut away, therefore, he has become disabled for ever. After retirement he would remain Incapacitated to add his income as a normal man and on this count, he is entitled to some amount” 19. In R.D. Mattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Ltd. ( AIR 1995 SC 755 ), in paragraph 9, the Apex Court has also indicated the matters to be taken into account in the following terms: “Broadly speaking while Fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money: whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) lost of earning of profit upto to the date of trial (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering already suffered or likely to he suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e. , on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. , on account of injury the normal legavity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stroke in life”. 20. From the above decisions, we have to note that on account of the permanent disablement, the appellant Ananthachari is not in a position to lead normal life. He will be continuing to suffer mental agony and pain. He would suffer frustration. If the Claimants happen to be the employees, in certain cases, there will be pecuniary loss in the sense that they will be allowed to do different kinds of work. There is also the chance of their promotion being affected. After retirement, they will not be able to add to their income in the same way as a normal person with the experience gained by them in service and the qualification possessed by them. There is also the chance of their promotion being affected. After retirement, they will not be able to add to their income in the same way as a normal person with the experience gained by them in service and the qualification possessed by them. In this case also, the appellant Ananthachari served as Additional Assistant Engineer in Ennore Thermal Station. Even after retirement, he would have been able to earn and add to his pensionary benefits. Even though it cannot be said that he has not been deprived of that chance fully, his chance of earning to his income in that way is only 70%. In this case, since the appellant retired from service in the year 1995 at the age of 58, we can assume that longevity of his life is upto the age of 65. After retirement in 1995, at the age of 58, he will be losing some income for about seven years. It is also brought to my notice that he is a diploma holder in Electrical Engineering. On account of his qualification, he would be in a position to earn at least at Rs. 750/- p.m. in the normal course. Since there is disablement to the extent of 30% he will be losing 1/3 of the same i.e., about Rs. 250/- p.m. Calculating the same for seven years, his loss would be about Rs. 21,000/-. Apart from the loss of income there will be difficulty in leading normal life since the date of the incident. For the same, another Rs. 5,000/- can be awarded. In my view, for permanent disablement, the appellant Ananthachri would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 26,000/- as indicated above. Already, Rs. 10,300/- has been found towards damages for medical expenses in the hospital and outside. For the said sum of Rs. 10,300/- the aforesaid sum of Rs. 26,000/- has to be added in awarding compensation in this particular case. 21. As regards, interest, the Tribunal has awarded only 9%. Learned Counsel for the Appellant represented that even though the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- he was not in a position to recover any amount from any of the Respondents. The Courts have taken the view that award of 12% interest will be a very reasonable one. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to receive the aforesaid compensation of Rs. Learned Counsel for the Appellant represented that even though the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- he was not in a position to recover any amount from any of the Respondents. The Courts have taken the view that award of 12% interest will be a very reasonable one. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to receive the aforesaid compensation of Rs. 36,300/- at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 22. As this Court has already confirmed that the appellants in similar cases were entitled to recover half of the amount of compensation from each of the two respondents, it goes without saying that the appellant herein will be entitled to receive one half of the above mentioned sum from each of the respondents-the General Manager, Pallavan Transport Corporation, Madras and the General Manager. Southern Railway, Madras. 23. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appeal in C.M.A. No. 483 of 1984 is allowed. In view of the order passed in C.M.A. No. 483 of 1984, the other appeal in C.M.A. No. 45 of 1984 is dismissed. No costs in both the appeals.