Judgment :- R. BANUMATHI Being dissatisfied with quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant for injuries sustained by him in the Road Traffic Accident on 7.6.1996 Claimant has filed this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation. 2. On 07.06.1996 at 3.15 am claimant/appellant was travelling in the State Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN 23 0654. While the bus was proceeding at Kullampatti village near Ayothiyapattinam in Harur-Salem High Road, lorry driven in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and hit against the bus. Claimant who was travelling in the bus sustained grievous injuries on the head and there was fracture of spinal cord, seriously affecting entire nervous system, resulting in the absence of sensation in his body below the shoulders. After the accident, head injuries were sutured at Government Hospital, Salem on the same day and thereafter, claimant had taken treatment at CMC Vellore. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver, claimant filed petition claiming compensation of Rs.8,50,000/-. 3. Denying the manner of accident, Respondent Corporation filed counter statement contending that lorry came in the opposite direction with dazzling lights and in spite of care taken by the bus driver, lorry hit against the bus and the bus was dragged to the left side and hit against the Tamarind tree. According to respondent accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry which came on the opposite direction. 4. Before the Tribunal, claimant was examined himself as PW1, Dr.T.Veerasami was examined as PW2 and Dr.T.Selvaraj, from Gokulam Hospital, Salem was examined as PW5. Exs.P1 to P17 were marked. Doctors opined that lower and upper limbs of claimant are immobilised. Pointing out that there cannot be award of compensation both under the head "Permanent Disability" and "Loss of Earning Capacity", Tribunal awarded Rs.4,25,000/- as compensation to the claimant as under:- Pain and Suffering:Rs.1,00,000.00 Permanent Disability:Rs.2,00,000.00 Transportation Charges:Rs. 10,000.00 Extra Nourishment :Rs. 15,000.00 Medical Expenses:Rs.1,00,000.00 TotalRs.4,25,000.00 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant sustained a cut injury in his head, which has incapacitated him and the fracture in spinal cord, which has affected the mobility and prevented the claimant from leading a normal life and both legs and hands are inactive. When the permanent disability is 100%, Tribunal has erred in awarding only Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. When the permanent disability is 100%, Tribunal has erred in awarding only Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. It was further submitted that amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for permanent disability is a very meagre amount and the appellant being an Engineering Graduate, Tribunal ought to have allowed a higher compensation and prayed for enhancement of compensation. 6. It is not necessary for us to elaborate upon the manner of accident, who was responsible for the accident and the liability of the Corporation. It is for the reason that the above aspects are recorded in favour of the claimant and are not seriously disputed by the appellant Corporation. Only the quantum of compensation awarded is under dispute. 7. As seen from Exs.P15 and P16, claimant has completed his engineering graduation. In the accident claimant sustained head injuries and the same were sutured at Government Hospital, Salem on 07.6.1996. There was also fracture of spinal cord and the claimant condition was very serious and he was admitted in Gokulam Hospital, Salem and thereafter, at CMC Hospital. The Claimant sustained injury due to the accident, and there was increased spasticity on both lower limbs and he had also sustained small abrasion on dorsum of right foot. In the right he had swelling involving dorsum of foot and lower aspect of leg. 8. In his evidence, PW1-Claimant has stated that while he was taking treatment in Gokulam Hospital, Salem he had breathing trouble and he was put on ventilation in Gokulam Hospital. Bone craft of C5 to C7 was done and plate fixation was also done. Claimant was also under Tracheastomy feeding. He was in-patient in Gokulam Hospital from 08.6.1996 to 19.6.1996. Thereafter, claimant continued his treatment at CMC Hospital, Vellore from 19.6.1996 onwards. In his evidence, PW2 - Dr.T.Veerasami attached to CMC Hospital has stated that the claimants hands, upper and lower limbs were immobilised and that he is unable to move and both the limbs are senseless. In his evidence, PW2 has stated that claimant is unable to move and PW2 has assessed the disability at 100%. In Ex.A5 disability certificate, Dr.K.Rajendra Prasad has certified that claimant is still undergoing treatment at Rehabilitation Institute, CMC and he needs further treatment to complete the rehabilitation programme. Dr.K.Rajendra Prasad has also issued Ex.A6 stating that claimant has paralysis of all the four limbs and incontinence of bladder / bowl. In Ex.A5 disability certificate, Dr.K.Rajendra Prasad has certified that claimant is still undergoing treatment at Rehabilitation Institute, CMC and he needs further treatment to complete the rehabilitation programme. Dr.K.Rajendra Prasad has also issued Ex.A6 stating that claimant has paralysis of all the four limbs and incontinence of bladder / bowl. In Ex.A6 disability certificate, Dr.K.Rajendra Prasad has expressed hope to make the claimant independent from a wheel chair and that the claimant needs to stay for further time to complete rehabilitation programme. 9. In his evidence, PW5- Dr Selvaraj attached to Gokulam Hospital has stated that when he admitted the claimant on 08.6.1996, he has noticed that the claimant was having pain on back side of the neck and both lower limbs were paralysed. PW5 has also deposed that down below shoulder of the claimant was senseless and that there was dislocation of C5 – C7 and bone craft of C5 to C7 was done and plate fixation was also done. As we pointed out earlier, claimant is a B.E graduate. 10. Because of the accident, the claimant is now totally immobilised and confined to wheel chair. From Ex.A14, it is seen that the claimant was involved in NSS programmes and that he was meritorious . In his evidence, PW1 has stated that after the accident he was totally dependent on others and he himself cannot lie down or sit and that he has to be dependant on others for all his normal day-to-day activities. PW1 has also stated that his life is now confined to wheel chair. At the time of accident, PW1-claimant was aged 23 years. Because of the injuries sustained in the accident and permanent disability, the entire future of the claimant is crippled. His physical frame has been shattered affecting his future. He has been confined to wheel chair and is incapacitated. Money cannot compensate what has been shattered. We cannot put the Claimant to his original position, but just and reasonable compensation has to be given. In our considered view, compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not commensurate with the nature of injuries sustained and percentage of disability. 11. In 1980 ACJ 55 (S) [Concord of India Insurance Co., Ltd., v. Nirmala Devi], the Supreme Court held as follows:- "2. ...... the determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales. 11. In 1980 ACJ 55 (S) [Concord of India Insurance Co., Ltd., v. Nirmala Devi], the Supreme Court held as follows:- "2. ...... the determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales. ...." 12. In 2006 (4) CTC 433 [Cholan Roadways Corporation Limited v. Ahmed Thambi], Full Bench of this Court observing that the compensation awarded is to be just, fair and adequate has held as under:- "The Supreme Court and this Court repeatedly held and reiterated that the compensation to be awarded by the Tribunals under any head should not be a token compensation, but it should be adequate and reasonable to achieve the statutory goal. The Tribunals are well advised to take into account the facts and circumstances of the individuals case, the age of the injured or the deceased on the date of the accident, social and economic status of the deceased of injured, the prospects of the deceased/injured earning more income if the accident had not taken place. The Courts and Tribunals, in bodily injured cases while assessing compensation should take into account all relevant circumstances, evidence, legal principles governing quantification of compensation". 13. Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.1,00,000/- for medical expenses, Rs.10,000/-for transportation charges and Rs. 15,000/-for extra nourishment. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under these heads are very reasonable warranting no interference. The claimant sustained 100% disability. He was an engineering graduate. Being an Engineering graduate, the claimant is confined to wheel chair and incapacitated. Even though claimant has sustained 100% disability, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-for permanent disability which in our considered view is low. In 2005 1 CTC 38 [United India Insurance Company Ltd., Tiruchengode Vs.Veluchamy, Division Bench of this Court has held that even in cases of personal injury Court could adopt multiplier method to award compensation for permanent disability. In the instant case, having regard to the nature of injuries, it would be appropriate to adopt multiplier method. Even taking the monthly income of the deceased at the lowest i.e., Rs.6,000/-and taking 100% disability and adopting multiplier 18, the compensation awarded for permanent disability would be Rs.12,96,000/- (Rs.6,000/- x 12 x 18x 100/100). The Tribunal did not keep in view 100% disability sustained by the claimant and that he is totally paralysed and confined to wheel chair. Even taking the monthly income of the deceased at the lowest i.e., Rs.6,000/-and taking 100% disability and adopting multiplier 18, the compensation awarded for permanent disability would be Rs.12,96,000/- (Rs.6,000/- x 12 x 18x 100/100). The Tribunal did not keep in view 100% disability sustained by the claimant and that he is totally paralysed and confined to wheel chair. The compensation to be awarded for personal injuries sustained has to be reasonable and not meagre or niggardly. Apart from the compensation of Rs.12,96,000/- for permanent disability, if we add the compensation to be awarded under the caption "pain and suffering, transportation charges, extra nourishment and medical expenses, the total expenses would be Rs.16,21,000/-. Since the claimant himself has prayed for compensation of only Rs.8,50,000/-, the compensation is restricted to Rs.8,50,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% and the same is confirmed. 14. The compensation awarded to the claimant is enhanced to Rs.8,50,000/-payable with interest at the rate of 9% p.a and the C.M.A is allowed. The Respondent Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with accrued interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, claimant is permitted to withdraw entire compensation amount along with accrued interest. No costs in this appeal.