Judgment :- Prabha Sridevan, J. 1. The claimant is represented by his wife, his next friend because he has become a living vegetable on account of the accident that took place on 13-05-1997. He was working in Crystal Knit Processes and he was going to his room from his place of work when the bus belonging to the appellant-Corporation hit him and he was caught under the body of the bus. He claimed a compensation of Rs.41,46,500/-which was restricted to a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. 2. The claimant sustained head injury, multiple brain stem injury which resulted in nerve palsy etc. He had been treated by the Doctors attached to a Private Hospital at Bhavani, C.K. Hospital, Erode and K.G. Hospital Coimbatore and a leading neurologist from Coimbatore. He was an inpatient from 13-05-1997 to 21-05-1997 and thereafter from 21-05-1997 to 30-06-1997. The Tribunal on a consideration of the materials placed before it awarded a compensation of Rs.26,72,337/-directing the claimants to pay the extra court-fee totally within one month. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation submitted that the multiplier adopted was very high and further there was evidence only to show that the claimant was earning a sum of Rs.9500/-and without any evidence for it had fixed the monthly income as Rs.12,000/-. 4. The learned counsel submitted that the multiplicand has been fixed at a high rate. The Tribunal ought to have adopted a lower multiplier and it was not have been proper to adopt the higher multiplier. The learned counsel would further submit that the Tribunal had erred in awarding Rs.50,000/-towards disability without following the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Cholan Roadways Corporation Limited Vs. Ahmed Thambi ( 2006 (4) CTC 433 ) has held that the award for loss of earning capacity and loss of disability cannot be granted separately. The learned counsel submitted that therefore, the award requires reduction. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand would submit that at the time of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the claimant had partial vision but now there is total loss of vision. The learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal had taken note of his physical condition and also posed specific questions to the Doctor and it is only thereafter, that the Tribunal held that it should be treated as 100% disability. The learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal had taken note of his physical condition and also posed specific questions to the Doctor and it is only thereafter, that the Tribunal held that it should be treated as 100% disability. The learned counsel submitted that for the person who is 34 years old, adoption of multiplier 17 is correct. The learned counsel submitted that the claimant had become a mere vegetable and therefore, a higher multiplier must be adopted and the Tribunal had failed to do so. When we take into account all this, the learned counsel submitted that the award does not deserve any interference. 6. The third respondent is the Insurance company of the vehicle driven by the claimant. The appellant submitted that even if the compensation is confirmed on the ground of contributory negligence, the Tribunal ought to have found that the injured was also partly responsible for the accident. P.W.3 is the eye-witness and he had stated that it was the bus which came at a high speed and hit the claimant Muralidharan and dragged him for a distance and therefore, it was only the bus driver who was responsible for the accident. The Tribunal has noted that the evidence elicited in the cross-examination does not in any way dilute the effect of the aggressive driving of the accused. Therefore, the finding that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver deserves to be confirmed. Further from Ex-P3 is the rough sketch it is seen that the bus has dashed the TVS 50 on which the claimant was driving, from behind. Therefore, it is clear that it is only the bus driver who has driven rashly and negligently which dashed against the injured claimant which resulted in very grievous injuries. 7. Now we come to the quantum. The respondent is 34 years old. He was working in Crystal Knit Processes as a Manager. P.W.1 is his wife Lalithakumari. Because of the injuries the injured has become incapable of even giving answers and therefore, it was only his wife who entered the witness box to give evidence on his behalf and she also represented him as his next friend. She would say that the husband has lost his memory power and that his brain has been affected by the injury. She would say that the husband has lost his memory power and that his brain has been affected by the injury. She had produced evidence to show that she had spent about Rs.1,49,337/-towards medical expenses. She had also stated that his left hand and left leg have become totally disabled. He had lost his earning capacity, his possible promotion and other prospects. He had taken treatment in K.G. Hospital and the evidence of Ex-P16 shows the neurologist opinion as Primary Brain Stem Injury and in his wound certificate it is stated that, "I have examined him today. He has right 3rd cranial nerve palsy with ptosis of right eyelid with diplopia (Double vision). He has memory deficit. His deficits in remote memory, recent memory, attention, concentration, recognition, retention and recall memory. He had mild weakness of left upper and lower limbs. I am of the opinion that this patient has 50% (fifty percent) permanent disability." 8. Doctor Sekhar who was examined as P.W.2 had stated that when he was admitted on 21-05-1997, he was unconscious. There was severe damage to his brain, his left side was virtually paralysed, the optic nerve to the right eye had lost his capacity and that the Muralidharans wife informed him that since he is incapable of working he is no longer working as a Dye-house Manager. The Tribunal has recorded its own personal impression of what the injured claimant is capable of. We appreciate this, since it is a record of what the Tribunal has seen. It could be seen that the claimant has no mental capacity and he was unfit for doing any work. The Tribunal had also posed questions to the Doctor, "(1) Is it impossible to cure the disability caused to the petitioner? Ans: No (2) What it can be cured? Ans: It is not possible to say with certainty, that the optic nerve of the petitioner which has been affected will be cured completely even if it is operated upon. It is probable it may improve within two years. But after two years the probabilities are very slight. " Then the Doctor had demonstrated the disability of the claimant by making the injured to open, close the eyes. It was found that even the movement of the right eye lid was difficult. The Tribunal had recorded that this was seen by both the counsel in the Court. But after two years the probabilities are very slight. " Then the Doctor had demonstrated the disability of the claimant by making the injured to open, close the eyes. It was found that even the movement of the right eye lid was difficult. The Tribunal had recorded that this was seen by both the counsel in the Court. Therefore, the Tribunal was satisfied that the certificate of 50% disability deserves to be confirmed. 9. P.W.4, one L.K.V. Sundarraj was examined to speak about the claimants prospects in the Company and he has given in the evidence that it is possible that he would have earned upto Rs.20,000/- per month, since the injured had obtained the Textile Processing Diploma. Through him Ex-P20, the appointment order has been filed. The Tribunal was satisfied on the basis of Ex-P17 receipts, P11 series, Ex-P10 that the injured was earning Rs.9500/-. The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, Ex-P18 wound certificate and also the judgment of this Court in 2003 (2) MLJ 352 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Tmt. Ponnammal) and taking into view of the fact that a just and reasonable compensation has to be fixed for a person who has become a mere vegetable, has fixed Rs.12,000/-as the possible income taking into account what he might have earned and thereafter, calculated the compensation as follows: TABLE Therefore, the total award would be a sum of Rs.25,64,000/-. 12. In R.D. Hattangadi Vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551 : (1995 AIR SCW 243: AIR 1995 SC 755 ) the Supreme Court had held as follows: "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) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant; (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up 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 be 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 longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life." This is quoted by the Supreme Court in AIR 1999 SC 2260 (Ashwani Kumar Mishra Vs. P. Muniam Babu and others) whereto the appellant had met with a road accident, underwent operations of his spinal cord and had become invalid for all practical purposes. The Supreme Court in that case observed that there must be some hypothesis and some guesswork is involved and some sympathy with the nature of the disability caused. 13. In this case, the person who was in the prime of his career is now totally depending on his wife who has to take care of everything. In fact in Ashwanis case the Supreme Court also awarded some amount for a permanent attendant, who would have to look after the injured. Taking into account all these factors and also the calculation we have made, we do not think that the quantum arrived at by this Court requires any interference. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the interest should be reduced to 7.5%. Therefore, the interest portion is reduced to 7.5%. To this extent alone, the C.M.A. is allowed. A period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order is granted for the respondent to deposit the award amount. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. 15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by reducing the rate of interest at 7.5%. However, there will be no order as to costs.