Judgment :- 1. The Transport Corporation is the appellant in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The claimant, who is the respondent in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, has filed a cross-objection. 2. In an accident involving the vehicle belonging to the appellant Corporation, the claimant suffered serious injuries and made a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 1253/91 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trichy on 7-10-1991. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,76,018/-. The Corporation have filed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal questioning the award and the claimant has filed the cross objection for increase in the amount awarded. 3. The case as set out in the petition is as follows: The accident took place on 4-5-1991 at about 03-00 hours at a place near Siruganoor. The claimant was travelling in the TTC bus bearing registration No. TCB-6875 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a great speed and was going from Trichy towards Madras. At that time another TTC bus bearing Registration No. TN.01/N-0331 also belonging to the appellant driven at a great speed in a rash and negligent manner was coming from the opposite direction and the two vehicles clashed against each other. The claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries all over his body including fracture in the left leg. Immediately he was shifted to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Trichy, where he was an in patient from 4.5.1991 to 8-5-1991. Thereafter, he was transferred to Viswanathan Pillai Hospital, Trichy, where surgical operation and plastic surgery were performed and till the date of filing the claim petition he was taking treatment as in patient in the hospital. The accident was entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the two buses involved. There was a case registered by Siruganoor Police Station in crime No. 139/91 under various sections of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Indian Penal Code and at the time of filing the claim petition, the case was pending investigation. At the time of the accident, the claimant was 52 years old and in spite of the best treatment rendered to him both in the Government Hospital and in the Private Nursing Home, he could not get the use of his right and left legs restored. He apprehended that it would remain a permanent disability. At the time of the accident, the claimant was 52 years old and in spite of the best treatment rendered to him both in the Government Hospital and in the Private Nursing Home, he could not get the use of his right and left legs restored. He apprehended that it would remain a permanent disability. At the time of the accident the claimant was working as a Physical Director in the Karaikudi Devakottai College earning Rs. 6000/- per month with which he was maintaining himself and his family. Due to the injures in the legs he could not walk. He incurred loss of employment and loss of income. The pain and suffering he underwent and he has still to undergo during his life was not capable of narration. He had spent more then Rs. 1,50.000/- towards medical expanses till the filing of the petition. In all, he was entitled to be paid a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs as compensation. 4. The appellant Corporation resisted the claim inter alia contending as follows: When the two buses were coming in the opposite direction and when they were close to each other, a drunken pedestrian who was walking on the road suddenly lost his balance and came to the tar road in the way of bus TN-01/N-0331 when it was only a few feet away. The driver in order to prevent a fatal accident, jammed his brakes and swerved the bus to his right and unfortunately, it dashed against the bus TCB-6875. The drunken pedestrian was the cause for the accident. The accident was an inevitable one and beyond the control of the driver. But for the sudden intruder the accident would not have happened. All the averments relating to age, income, occupation of the claimant, the nature of injures suffered by him, the period of treatment and that the injures would result in permanent disability to him were all denied. In any event, the claim for Rs. 6 lakhs was highly excessive and without any basis. 5. The Tribunal on the materials produced, found that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the drivers of both the vehicles. This finding has been reached on abundant materials and no interference is a called for and the finding is confirmed. 6. The only question now relates to the quantum. 5. The Tribunal on the materials produced, found that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the drivers of both the vehicles. This finding has been reached on abundant materials and no interference is a called for and the finding is confirmed. 6. The only question now relates to the quantum. While the appellant Corporation questions the quantum as on the high side, the claimant wants enhancement alleging that the compensation awarded is ridiculously low for the permanent disability suffered by him. The Tribunal accepted the disability certificate EXL-170 qualifying the disability at 52% to the claimant. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 60,000/- under this head. 7. Mr. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. R.G. Narendhran, Counsel for the claimant, submitted that a minimum of Rs. 2 lakhs should have been awarded under this head. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that by reason of the accident the claimants future was gone he could not pursue his Ph. D. and his dreams to go high up were shattered. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions.” (1) Nagesh v. M.S. Krishan and others (JT 1998 4 SC 438); (2) Mrs. Helen C. Rebello and others v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another 1999 1 L.W. 208 = JT 1998 6 SC 418); (3) Swatantra Kumar v. Oamar Ali and others (JT 1998 8 SC 247) and; (4) Ashwani Kumar Mishra v. P. Muniam Babu and others 1999 2 L.W. 611 = 1999 4 SCC 22 ); 8. In the first of the cases, the claimant suffered serious injures as a result of a motor accident because of which he was hospitalised for about four months during which he had to undergo serious surgical operations. Even after the treatment he was not cured and he became paralysed for life. The extent of permanent disablement was assessed at 95 per cent. He was aged about 23 years at the time of the accident. The High Court had awarded Rs. 2,85,000/-. This was enhanced to Rs. 6 lakhs. It was found that the claimant required medical attention for the rest of his life and constant care of some other person even for his ordinary needs. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court enhanced the amount to Rs. 6 lakhs. 9. The High Court had awarded Rs. 2,85,000/-. This was enhanced to Rs. 6 lakhs. It was found that the claimant required medical attention for the rest of his life and constant care of some other person even for his ordinary needs. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court enhanced the amount to Rs. 6 lakhs. 9. In the second of the cases cited above, the Supreme Court has observed as follows: “The whole scheme of the Act, in relation to the payment of compensation to the claimant, is a beneficial legislation, the intention of the legislature is made more clear by the change of language from what was in Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and what is brought under Section 110-B of the 1939 Act. This is also visible through the provision of Section 168(1) under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Section 92-A of 1939 Act which fixes the liability on the owner of the vehicle even on no fault. It provides where the death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident in spite of no fault of the owner of the vehicle, an amount of compensation fixed therein is payable to claimant by such owner of the Vehicle. Section 92-B ensures that the claim for compensation under Section 92-A is in addition to any other right to claim compensation in respect whereof under any other provision of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force. This clearly indicates the intention of the legislature which is conferring larger benefit to the claimant. Interpretation of such beneficial legislation is also well settled. Whenever there be two possible interpretations in such statute then the one which subserves the object of legislation viz benefit to the subject should be accepted.” In the case before the Supreme Court, the question arose as to whether the money received or receivable under life insurance policy was deductible from the amount of compensation. The Supreme Court held that the same was not deductible. 10. In the third of the cases, in an accident the pillion rider suffered prolonged medical treatment. He also suffered partial permanent disability, his leg having been shortened by 1.75 inches. The Supreme Court increased the award of compensation by Rs. 1 lakh both on the heads of pain, shock and suffering as well as for future economic loss. 10. In the third of the cases, in an accident the pillion rider suffered prolonged medical treatment. He also suffered partial permanent disability, his leg having been shortened by 1.75 inches. The Supreme Court increased the award of compensation by Rs. 1 lakh both on the heads of pain, shock and suffering as well as for future economic loss. The Supreme Court while deciding that case, kept in view its own decision awarding an additional amount of Rs. 4 lakhs to the motorcycle driver whose leg was shortened by 3 inches in the same accident and the award was increased to Rs. 4 lakhs. 11. In the last of the decisions, the age of the victim was 23 years. He met with an accident and suffered serious damage to his spinal cord and he became a permanently disabled as a result. He claimed Rs. 2000/- as his monthly income from his fathers firm. The compensation was fixed by the High Court at Rs. 2,25,000/- with interest at 12% per annum. The Supreme Court took his monthly income at Rs. 2000/-, applied a multiplier of 16 and found that he was entitled to claim Rs. 3,84,000/-on account of loss of expectation to life besides disappointment, frustration and mental stress particularly when he had to keep a permanent attendant to look after him for the rest of his life. To this a sum of Rs. 1,14,000/- was added on account of expenses incurred on medical care and for the pain and suffering during the period of treatment, arrived at Rs. 4,98,000/- and rounded it off to Rs. 5 lakhs inclusive of cost of litigation. 12. In the instant case, the claimant was 52 years at the time of the accident. He was working as Physical Director in Karaikudi, Devakottai College earning Rs. 6000/- per month. According to the claimant, though not stated in the pleadings, in the course of evidence he had stated that he had been admitted to Ph.D. in Physical Education in Madurai Kamarajar University and he could not complete the same. He was hospitalised for 10 months. But, during the period he was compelled to stay away from work, he had admitted to having received his full salary as also increments. The Tribunal has reasoned that because of the accident there was no loss of income to the claimant. He was hospitalised for 10 months. But, during the period he was compelled to stay away from work, he had admitted to having received his full salary as also increments. The Tribunal has reasoned that because of the accident there was no loss of income to the claimant. As per medical opinion, he was competent to continue to work as Physical Director, but the same he had to do with certain amount of difficulty. This is what the doctor examined as P.W.3 had said. The doctor had certified the extent of permanent disability at 52%. The Tribunal found that at the time of the accident he was 52 years old and having regard to his age, education, position, salary and social status as also the nature of the permanent disability, a sum of Rs. 60,000/- was adequate. According to Mr. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel, the claimant should have been awarded at least Rs. 2 lakhs under this head and only in support of this submission the decisions already referred to were relied on by the learned Senior Counsel. The details as to the circumstances under which enhanced compensations were awarded in the cases relied on by the learned Senior Counsel have already been narrated. 13. In Mrs. Helen C. Rebello and other v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another (JT 1998 6 SC 418) it is stated that the compensation should be just and expatiating the same the Supreme Court has observed as follows: “The word ‘just’ as its nomenclature, denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness having large peripheral field. The largeness is, of course, not arbitrary; it is restricted by the conscience which is fair, reasonable and equitable,-if it exceeds; it is termed as unfair, unreasonable, unequitable, not just. Thus, the field of wider discretion of the Tribunal has to be within the said limitations and the limitations under any provision of this Act or any other provision having force of law.” 14. Thus, the field of wider discretion of the Tribunal has to be within the said limitations and the limitations under any provision of this Act or any other provision having force of law.” 14. Again, in Ashwani Kumar Mishra v. P. Muniam Babu and others ( 1999 4 SCC 22 ) the Supreme Court, after referring to its earlier judgment in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. ( 1995 1 SCC 551 ) further observed as follows: “Whenever a Tribunal or Court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. However, all such elements are required to be viewed with objective standards. While assessing damage the Court cannot base its opinion merely on speculation or fancy though conjectures to some extent are inevitable.” 15. In the instant case, the Tribunal has observed that his right leg was affected and he was operated upon. He was inpatient for over a year. His injury had healed. He had undergone pain and suffering. On that score it awarded Rs. 30,000/- and for permanent disability, the Tribunal as already stated fixed it at Rs. 60,000/- for 52% permanent disability. The normal practice is to award Rs. 1 lakh per 1 %. The Tribunal has actually awarded Rs. 60,000/-. The cases decided by the Supreme Court and relied on by the learned Senior Counsel were cases where the disability was 95% and where there was shortening of leg. That appears not to be the case here. 16. I cannot help referring to a particular aspect relating to the conduct of the claimant. The Tribunal has referred to this in paragraph 13 of its order. With a view to boost his claim for medical treatment, the claimant had produced medical bills, receipts and vouchers either duplicating or giving false details. By doing this the claimant made it appear that he had spent Rs. 66,000/- under this head. As he could not correlate the bills to his treatment, the Tribunal rejected the claim for Rs. 66,000/-. The Tribunal has also adverted to his producing bills and receipts from another Nursing Home for Rs. 11,000/-. The Tribunal has further referred to Exs.P-86 to P-123 being the bills relating to transport by taxi at the rate of Rs. 540/- per trip. 66,000/-. The Tribunal has also adverted to his producing bills and receipts from another Nursing Home for Rs. 11,000/-. The Tribunal has further referred to Exs.P-86 to P-123 being the bills relating to transport by taxi at the rate of Rs. 540/- per trip. The bills relate to a period when he was an in patient in Viswanathan Pillai Hospital. It would appear that he was getting treatment from two hospitals for the same injury at the same time. The receipts had all been typed out at the same time and the Tribunal has adverted to this aspect and rejected those receipts. All these things are now referred to, more to highlight how a Physical Director earning Rs. 6000/- per month and who was working for Ph.D. had relied on false documents to claim higher compensation. 17. The claimant had not suffered loss of income. The percentage of the extent of permanent disability was only 52%. For pain and suffering for over a year in the hospital possibly a higher amount could have been fixed. On this score, I am inclined to increase the compensation under this head from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 60,000/-. For permanent disability the amount awarded, viz. Rs. 60,000/-, in my view, is quite adequate. It is also represented by the learned Senior Counsel that the claimant has since retired from service. In the case decided by the Supreme Court, the claimants were very young in age and one of the claimants suffered paralysis for life on account of the accident and the other claimant had his leg shortened by 1.75 inches. As already observed, in fixing the quantum particularly when it came to non-pecuniary damages like mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future, damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which might include disability to walk, run or sit and inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress, some guess work, some hypothetical consideration and some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused are involved. The very doctor had stated that he could continue to perform his job as Physical Director with some difficulty. From the records it is not seen that the claimant had suffered any shortening of limb, though his mobility had been affected. 18. The very doctor had stated that he could continue to perform his job as Physical Director with some difficulty. From the records it is not seen that the claimant had suffered any shortening of limb, though his mobility had been affected. 18. Taking an overall picture of all the things discussed above, I am of the view that only a further sum of Rs. 30,000 can be awarded to the claimant. 19. Consequently, while dismissing the appeal filed by the Transport Corporation, the cross objection will stand allowed and instead of Rs. 1,76,018/- awarded by the Tribunal, there will be an award in a sum of Rs. 2,06,018/-. The cross-objection will stand allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.