Judgment :- This Appeal is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam) in M. A. C. T. O. P. No. 100 of 1989. The claimant in the O. P. is the appellant in the above appeal. 2. According to the claimant, she is a native of Cumbum in Uthamapalayam Taluk and she migrated to Vandiperiyar in Idikki District in Kerala and engaged herself as an Estate Worker in the nearby tea estates. She is a family women having three sons and four daughters, all of them are below the teen age and with her salary of Rs. 850/- per month from the estate and the income of her husband as a Newspaper seller, she was looking after the family. Occasionally she had come to Cumbum and returned with the purchases of house hold articles. On such occasion, on 30-9-1988 she was met with an accident at Cumbum bus stand. The accident occurred at Cumbum bus stand on 30-9-1988 at 5.35 p.m. When she got up with two small bags of household effects, on the first foot board of the bus bearing registration No. T. C. B. 7350 the driver of the bus chided the lady and asked her to get down immediately. While she was getting down, without any warning and without ascertaining whether the claimant had safely got down, the driver suddenly took the vehicle on a terrible speed on account of which the claimant fell down and her right leg was crushed by the rear wheel of the bus and she lay in a pool of blood and she also sustained head injury and rushed to the Government hospital, Cumbum. The injury became worse and the swelling did not subside, she was referred to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, for intensive treatment. However, her right leg below the knee was twice subjected to amputation and she was discharged on 16-12-1988. The bus belongs to the respondent Corporation. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the bus. It was further contended that she was earning not less than Rs. 850/- per month besides other amenities like annual bonus and other amenities on festive occasions, but on account of the accident and the permanent disablement she cannot continue as an Estate Worker. She claimed Rs. 3,000/- towards loss of earning and Rs. It was further contended that she was earning not less than Rs. 850/- per month besides other amenities like annual bonus and other amenities on festive occasions, but on account of the accident and the permanent disablement she cannot continue as an Estate Worker. She claimed Rs. 3,000/- towards loss of earning and Rs. 450/- for transport from Cumbum to Madurai and back and she has spent Rs. 600/- for extra nourishment and Rs. 250/- for medicines. She had also spent a sum of Rs. 1350/- for another person who had to attend her when she was as an inpatient in the hospital. For pain and suffering she had claimed Rs. 5,000/- and for continuing disability she claimed Rs. 90,000/- and a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- was claimed towards disfigurement and social disability. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was claimed towards loss of expectation and amenities and the total claim comes to Rs. 1,11,550/-, but the petitioner restricted her claim to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 3. In the counter filed by the respondent, while denying the claims made in the claim petition, it was contended that the accident did not happen due to any rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the respondent Corporation. According to the respondent, when the driver started the bus from Cumbum bus stand, the petitioner tried to enter into the bus through the front side entrance of the bus along with her luggage. At that time due to over crowd, the conductor of the bus advised the petitioner to go to city bus stand because she was keeping heavy luggage. But to her own carelessness, her right leg was run over by the front wheel of the bus. The accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the claimant herself. 4. The Tribunal after consideration of the evidence held that the driver of the Transport Corporation was negligent and it was only due to the same the accident had occurred. With reference to the compensation, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs. 45,000/- as payable to the claimant. The Tribunal rejected the claim as made by the claimant on the ground that artificial leg has been fixed for the claimant and that therefore, the claims towards disfigurement and social disability were rejected by the Tribunal. 5. With reference to the compensation, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs. 45,000/- as payable to the claimant. The Tribunal rejected the claim as made by the claimant on the ground that artificial leg has been fixed for the claimant and that therefore, the claims towards disfigurement and social disability were rejected by the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the claimant being an estate worker, the amputation of the leg has resulted in complete loss of ability to continue her to work as an estate labourer. For performing the duties of the estate labourer, she has to climb steep radiant of the hills. It was absolutely not possible with an artificial leg. The amount granted by the Tribunal was too low considering that the entire working capacity of the claimant had been deprived of. Learned counsel would also refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1998 ACJ 859 (Shashendra Lahiri v. UNICEF). In that case the injured was a 17 year old student of B.Com. who suffered permanent disability and hospitalisation for twice in different hospitals, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 33,000/- which was enhanced in appeal to Rs. 58,000/- by the High Court. The Supreme Court on an overall consideration and also considering the adverse effect of the claimant's permanent disability on his future prospectus was much more than what was assessed by the High Court and the Tribunal. Consequently, the Supreme Court enhanced the award to Rs. 4,58,000/-. Reliance was also placed on another judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1998 (2) ACJ 920 : 1998 AIR(SCW) 3859) (Swatantra Kumar v. Qamar Ali). In that case, the claimant suffered permanent disability in spite of prolonged treatment in different hospitals which resulted in shortening of leg by 1-3/4 inch. He was earning Rs. 500/- per month. The Supreme Court on a consideration of the overall circumstances, ordered an additional amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid to the appellant by way of compensation in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Placing reliance on the above two decisions, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the present case, admittedly, the claimant was earning Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid to the appellant by way of compensation in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Placing reliance on the above two decisions, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the present case, admittedly, the claimant was earning Rs. 850/- per month besides the annual bonus and other amenities and that inasmuch as her earning capacity has been completely deprived off, the amount granted by the Tribunal is far below the fair and just compensation. The rejection of the claim towards disfigurement and the loss of future income was also erroneous. The fact that an artificial leg has been provided to the claimant cannot be substituted for disfigurement. 7. I have considered the points thus raised by learned counsel for the appellant and I have also heard counsel for the respondent. 8. On the question of negligence, the Tribunal considered the evidence in detail and has recorded a positive finding to the effect that it was the driver of the respondent Corporation who was responsible for the accident. He has also taken note of the evidence of the independent witness. It is pertinent to note that the Corporation has not filed any appeal as against the liability fixed on the respondent. Therefore, when once, it has been held that the respondent Corporation was responsible for the accident, the disability suffered by the claimant has to be considered from proper perspective. The Doctor has been examined on the side of the claimant and Ex. A.2, the disability certificate has also been marked. It is seen that the disability has been fixed at 65 per cent and 3 per cent towards pain and a total of 68 per cent of disability has been certified. It is also stated that the claimant experiences pain while walking with the artificial limb, it cannot also be disputed that the claimant cannot work as an estate labourer any more. 9. Having regard to the aforementioned reasons, I am inclined to hold that the claimant is entitled to the following amounts as just compensation :- (i) Disability Rs. 75,000-00 (ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000-00 (iii) Disfigurement and social disability Rs. 5,000-00 (iv) Transport, extra Nourishment and medical and nursing attendance Rs. 5,000-00 10. Therefore, the claimant/appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 90,000/-. She is entitled to 12 per cent interest on the enhanced compensation C.M.A. is allowed. 75,000-00 (ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000-00 (iii) Disfigurement and social disability Rs. 5,000-00 (iv) Transport, extra Nourishment and medical and nursing attendance Rs. 5,000-00 10. Therefore, the claimant/appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 90,000/-. She is entitled to 12 per cent interest on the enhanced compensation C.M.A. is allowed. No. costs. Appeal allowed.