Judgment :- R. Banumathi, J. Being aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs.21,00,887/- for the injuries sustained by 1st Respondent-Claimant, Appellant-Insurance Company who is the insurer of the tanker lorry bearing registration No.TN-01-J 3227 has filed this Appeal. 2. Brief facts are that on 10.07.2000 at about 21.55 hours, 1st Respondent-Claimant was driving the Metropolitan Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration No.TN-01-N 2722 from Parrys to Karonadai along GNT Road. When the Bus stopped at ACT Company Bus stop, Madhavaram, the Tanker Lorry bearing registration No.TN-01-J 3227 came from the opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner attempted to overtake an unknown vehicle and in that process came to its right side and collided head on which the bus was driven by the 1st Respondent. Due to the accident, 1st Respondent-Claimant sustained compound and communited fracture of right femur; compound and communited fracture of both bones in right leg; compound and communited fracture of both bones in left leg; fracture in left hip; fracture of right knee and injuries all over the body. After the accident, Claimant was admitted in Government Stanley Hospital and thereafter taken treatment at various hospitals. Stating that he has suffered permanent disability and that he has been discharged from service on medical grounds, Claimant has filed Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. 3. Appellant-Insurance Company/insurer of tanker lorry bearing registration No.TN-01-J 3227 filed counter inter alia contending that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent act of 1st Respondent-Claimant and therefore the owner of the bus i.e. Metropolitan Transport Corporation is proper and necessary party. Appellant-Insurance Company has also inter alia raised objection regarding age nature of injuries, percentage of disability and the period of treatment and that the quantum of compensation claimed by the Claimant is on the higher side. 4. Before the Tribunal, Claimant examined himself as PW1. Muniammal, wife of Claimant was examined as PW2. Dr.Saichandran, who issued disability certificate was examined as PW3. One Madhankumar, son of the Claimant was examined as PW4. One Gandhi, co-worker of Claimant was examined as PW5. Exs.P1 to P27 were marked. On the side of Respondents no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. 5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of tanker lorry bearing registration No.TN-01-J 3227. One Gandhi, co-worker of Claimant was examined as PW5. Exs.P1 to P27 were marked. On the side of Respondents no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. 5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of tanker lorry bearing registration No.TN-01-J 3227. Tribunal rejected the contention of Appellant-Insurance Company that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Based upon the evidence of PW1-Claimant and PW3-Dr.Saichandran and taking the disability at 90%, Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.21,00,887/- under various heads. 6. Challenging the finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence and also the quantum of compensation, Mr. Arunkumar, learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company submitted that when it is head on collision, Tribunal ought to have held that drivers of both the vehicle were equally responsible for the accident and negligence ought to have been fastened upon the bus driver-Claimant also. It was further submitted that Tribunal erred in not properly appreciating the evidence and the circumstances of the case which indicate that Claimant-driver of the bus who drove Metropolitan Transport Corporation bus was also equally responsible for the accident. In so far as, quantum of compensation, learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the compensation awarded under various heads are very much on the higher side and some of the heads are unsustainable. Placing reliance upon 2006-3-LW 1025 [Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. Ahmed Thambi and others], it was submitted that there cannot be an award of compensation under two separate heads viz., compensation for continuing or "permanent disability" and also compensation for "loss of earning power". 7. Mr.Muthurajan, learned counsel appearing for the Claimant submitted that due to the injuries suffered, Claimants both legs were stiffed and right knee was crushed and also Claimant sustained fracture in the right hip and due to the injuries, Claimant is totally immobilised and unable to move and due to the injuries, Claimant was also discharged from the services of Transport Corporation and Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.21,00,887/-under various heads. Learned counsel for Claimant would further submit that Claimant being now immobilised, quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be exorbitant or on the higher side. 8. Upon consideration of evidence, findings of Tribunal and rival contentions, the following points arise for consideration in this Appeal:- 1. Learned counsel for Claimant would further submit that Claimant being now immobilised, quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be exorbitant or on the higher side. 8. Upon consideration of evidence, findings of Tribunal and rival contentions, the following points arise for consideration in this Appeal:- 1. Whether the accident was due to composite negligence of Metropolitan Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration No.TN-01 N 2722 and Tanker lorry bearing registration No.TN-01 J 3227? 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 9. Point No.1:- Negligence - Insofar as negligence, the contention of Appellant-Insurance Company is that the accident being head on collision between Metropolitan Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration No.TN-01-N 2722 and also tanker lorry bearing registration No.TN-01-J 3227. The Claimant who was driver of the bus, Metropolitan Transport Corporation was also equally responsible for the accident. Further contention of the Appellant is that since it was head on collision between two vehicles, Tribunal ought to have apportioned the negligence among the drivers of both the vehicle and Tribunal erred in finding that the accident was solely due to the negligent driving of the tanker lorry driver. Learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company submitted that Appellant-Insurance Company could not examine the driver, since the driver of the tanker lorry died in the accident. 10. In the counter even though Appellant-Insurance Company raised the plea that Claimant-driver of the bus was also responsible for the accident, Appellant-Insurance Company has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. Mere fact of head on collision between two vehicles would not ipso facto lead to the conclusion of composite negligence of both the vehicles. It is for the party who is alleging composite negligence has to independently adduce evidence to substantiate the plea of composite negligence. 11. In the instant case as seen from Ex.P21-Plan filed by the Claimant, the bus was proceeding from West to East and the tanker lorry was proceeding from East to West. It is evident from Ex.P21-Plan that the lorry which was proceeding East-West swerved to the northern side i.e. on its right side and hit against the MTC bus. To put it in other words, the tanker lorry appears to have gone on the right side and hit against the bus. The bus which was proceeding in its right direction i.e. on the northern side. To put it in other words, the tanker lorry appears to have gone on the right side and hit against the bus. The bus which was proceeding in its right direction i.e. on the northern side. The manner of accident as seen from Ex.P21-Plan indicates that the driver of tanker lorry was prima facie responsible in causing the accident. The FIR in Criminal Case in Crime No.771/2000 under Sec.279, 337, 338 & 304(A) IPC was also registered against the lorry driver. 12. Faced with the documentary evidence [Exs.P20 and P21], the Appellant-Insurance Company ought to have adduced independent evidence to substantiate its plea of composite negligence. Absolutely, there is no evidence either to substantiate the plea or to rebut the documentary evidence adduced by the Claimant. In the absence of any evidence adduced by the Appellant-Insurance Company, in our considered view, the Tribunal was right in holding that the driver of tanker lorry was solely responsible for the accident. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence adduced by the Appellant-Insurance Company, we do not find any reason to take a different view from the finding arrived at by the Tribunal. Finding of the Tribunal holding that driver of tanker lorry was negligent and fastened the liability upon the Appellant-Insurance Company who is the insurer of tanker lorry is confirmed. 13. Point No.2:- Quantum of compensation - Coming to the quantum of compensation, Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.21,00,887/-. In the accident, Claimant has suffered compound and communited fracture of right thigh bone, both bones in right leg, both bones in left leg, fracture of left thigh bone, fracture in left hip, injected haemetoma in right thigh, fracture of right knee and knee crushed. Claimant also sustained lacerated injury in both the hands and sustained multiple injuries. After the accident, Claimant was admitted in Government Stanley Hospital where he had taken treatment from 10.07.2000 to 19.07.2000. Thereafter, he had taken treatment at KGR Hospital from 19.07.2000 to 27.09.2000. Claimant had also taken treatment in Sri Ramachandra Medical College Hospital, Porur. In his evidence, PW1/Claimant has stated that he continued his treatment as out-patient till 25.09.2001. In the same hospital he has taken treatment as inpatient subsequently during September – October 2001 and again in December 2001 – January 2002. Claimant is said to have taken treatment as inpatient for ten occasions. 14. In his evidence, PW1/Claimant has stated that he continued his treatment as out-patient till 25.09.2001. In the same hospital he has taken treatment as inpatient subsequently during September – October 2001 and again in December 2001 – January 2002. Claimant is said to have taken treatment as inpatient for ten occasions. 14. In his evidence, PW1 has stated that after the accident, he is not in a position to sit or stand and that he has to depend on others even for his daily routine. In his evidence, PW1 has further stated that for coming to the Court to give evidence, he was brought by three of the relatives and that he is totally immobilised. PW1 also stated that he is not in a position to move or participate in any of the outside activities. PW1 has further stated that because of his permanent disability, he was also discharged from the services of Transport Corporation. 15. PW3-Dr.Saichandran examined the Claimant and noticed that Claimant sustained fracture in both thighs and that rods were inserted. PW3 had also noticed that Claimant is not in a position to move his knee joint and that the thigh bones were fitted by rods. In his evidence, PW3 has stated that Claimant could stand only with walker stick and that he is not in a position to walk. PW3 has issued Ex.P23-disability certificate assessing the disability at 90% for the fracture of upper and lower limbs. 16. Since, Claimant has sustained fracture injury in his both thighs and is unable to move his knee and having sustained 90% disability, Transport Corporation has issued Ex.P19 show cause notice to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service. Referring to the opinion of the Medical Board, Metropolitan Transport Corporation has stated that Medical Board has opined that Claimant is not fit for driver work and Claimant was called upon to offer explanation as to why he should not be discharged from the services on medical ground. Even though, Claimant was called upon to offer explanation, Claimant does not appear to have given any explanation. Under Ex.P18-Memorandum [Fwpg;ghiz vz;/00374-ggp(eph;)6-khnghf-2001 ehs; 11/3/2003] dated 11.3.2003, Claimant was discharged from services on medical ground that he is not fit for driver work. 17. Even though, Claimant was called upon to offer explanation, Claimant does not appear to have given any explanation. Under Ex.P18-Memorandum [Fwpg;ghiz vz;/00374-ggp(eph;)6-khnghf-2001 ehs; 11/3/2003] dated 11.3.2003, Claimant was discharged from services on medical ground that he is not fit for driver work. 17. Upon considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 and Ex.P26-discharge summary issued by Sri Ramachandra Medical College Hospital and Ex.P23-disability certificate, we have no difference of views that Claimant sustained fracture injuries and that his lower and upper limbs are immobilised and he is not in a position to walk or carry on his avocation. Even if we take 90% disability as assessed by PW3, in our considered view, the quantum of compensation of Rs.21,00,887/-awarded by the Tribunal under various heads appears to be on the higher side. 18. What is payable is just compensation. Tribunal has to determine the claim bearing in mind and statutory mandate that what is payable is just compensation and it cannot be a bonanza. In 1991-1-LW 208 [Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation], the Supreme Court observed that the tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which to it appears to be just. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. Bodily injury is nothing but a deprivation which entitles the claimant to damages. The quantum of damages fixed should be in accordance with the injury. An injury may bring about many consequences like loss of earning capacity, loss of mental pleasure and many such consequential losses. A person becomes entitled to damages for mental and physical impairment, his or her life may have been shortened or that he or she cannot enjoy life, which has been curtailed because of physical handicap. The normal expectation of life is impaired. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but the same should not be a pittance. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but the same should not be a pittance. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be just compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of just compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by the use of the expression "which appears to it to be just", a wide discretion is vested on the tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, guesses and arbitrariness. The expression” just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness." 19. Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.21,00,887/- under the following heads:- “TABLE” Sl.No. Heads Amount Rs. 1 Loss of earning from 11.07.2000 to 10.07.2001 at Rs.5750/- per month 80,000.00 2 Transport to hospital 65,000.00 3 Extra-nourishment 47,000.00 4 Damages to clothing and articles 1,000.00 5 Private medical expenses 1,37,887.00 6 Future medical expenses 80,000.00 7 Mental agony for limping 1,50,000.00 8 Compensation for attendants 50,000.00 9 Future transport expenses 40,000.00 10 Compensation for pain and suffering 1,50,000.00 11 Compensation for continuing or permanent disability 3,00,000.00 12 Compensation for the loss of earning power 10,00,000.00 Total 21,00,887.00 20. Insofar as compensation for "permanent disability" and compensation for "loss of earning power", Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively. In 2006-3-LW 1025 [Cholan Roadways Corpn. Ltd. Rep. by Managing Director, Kumbakonam v. Ahmed Thambi and others], Full Bench of this Court has held that there cannot be two separate head of compensation awarded for "loss of earning power" and "permanent disability". Holding that when the loss of "earning capacity" is possible, loss of "permanent disability" need not be itemised, in Paragraph (19), the Full Bench has held as under:- "19. Holding that when the loss of "earning capacity" is possible, loss of "permanent disability" need not be itemised, in Paragraph (19), the Full Bench has held as under:- "19. In order to avoid any future confusion and to bring more clarity and transparency in the award of damages, it is necessary that the tribunal, while awarding damages, should itemise the award under each of the head namely, pecuniary losses and nonpecuniary losses. In the non-pecuniary losses the tribunal shall consider a) pain and suffering, b) loss of amenity, c) loss of expectation of life, hardship, mental stress, etc; d) loss of prospect of marriage and under the head pecuniary loses, the tribunal shall consider loss of earning capacity and loss of future earnings as one component apart from medical and other expenses and loss of earning, if any from the date of accident till the date of trial. When loss of earning capacity is compensated as also the nonpecuniary losses under (a) to (d), permanent disability need not be separately itemised." Applying the ratio of the decision of Full Bench of this Court, we are of the view that the compensation awarded under two different heads – compensation for "loss of earning power" and compensation for "permanent disability" cannot be maintained. 21. Multiplier method - Point falling for our consideration is as to the quantum to be awarded for "permanent disability". As we pointed out earlier, Claimant has sustained 90% disability and he has been discharged from the services of Metropolitan Transport Corporation. At the time of accident, Claimant was drawing salary of Rs.5000/-per month. In his evidence, PW5-Gandhi, co-worker has stated that he was also getting salary of Rs.4782/-. As the driver at the time while he was deposed in Court, he was getting salary of Rs.6555/- and that there is an increase by about Rs.2500/-. But for the accident, if the Claimant would have continued in service, he would also earn more salary. Having regard to the evidence of PW5, we deem it appropriate to take the monthly salary of the Claimant at Rs.6000/-per month. At the time of accident, Claimant was aged 44 years. He would have continued in service at 58 years. 22. In considering the quantum of compensation to be awarded for "permanent disability" in appropriate cases, Court could adopt multiplier method. At the time of accident, Claimant was aged 44 years. He would have continued in service at 58 years. 22. In considering the quantum of compensation to be awarded for "permanent disability" in appropriate cases, Court could adopt multiplier method. In 2005 (1) CTC 38 [United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Tiruchengode v. Veluchamy and another], the Division Bench of this Court, in Paragraph (11) has laid down the principles governing assessment of damages in personal injury cases. "11. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (a) In all case of injury or permanent disablement "multiplier method"cannot be mechanically applied to ascertain the future loss of income or earning power. (b) It depends upon various factors such as nature and extent of disablement, avocation of the injured and whether it would affect his employment or earning power etc., and if so, to what extent? (c) (1) If there is categorical evidence that because of injury and consequential disability, the injured lost his employment or avocation completely and has to be idle till the rest of his life, in that event loss of income or earning may be ascertained by applying "multiplier method" as provided under Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (2) Even if so there is no need to adopt the same period as that of fatal cases as provided under the Schedule. If there is no amputation and if there is evidence to show that there is likelihood of reduction or improvement in future years, lesser period may be adopted for ascertainment of loss of income. (d) Mainly it depends upon the avocation or profession or nature of employment being attended by the injured at the time of accident. Applying the ratio of the above decision since at the time of accident the Claimant was aged 44 years, as per the Second Schedule to M.V. Act, multiplier "14" is adopted. 23. Deduction towards personal expenses - Learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company submitted that while adopting multiplier method for determining the quantum of compensation for "permanent disability", Court has to deduct 1/3rd amount for personal expenses. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon 2005 ACJ 1131 [New India Assurance Company Limited v. Charlie and another]. By reading of the Judgment, we find that making 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses was not specifically argued and considered. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon 2005 ACJ 1131 [New India Assurance Company Limited v. Charlie and another]. By reading of the Judgment, we find that making 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses was not specifically argued and considered. One-third deduction to be made in personal injury cases appears to be only a passing observation. 24. In the recent Judgment in 2009 (1) TLNJ 172 (Civil) [Oriental Insurance Company Limited vl Ram Prasad Varma and others], the Supreme Court has considered the question of deduction towards personal expenditure in personal injury cases. Observing that when a person although alive, but when he is not in a position to move and even for every small thing he has to depend upon others, direction to deduct 1/3rd of the amount from his total income need not always be insisted upon. In Paragraph (11) of the Judgment, the Supreme Court held as under:- "11. One-third amount is deducted from computation of compensation from the total income on the premise that some expenses were necessary for ones own survival. Incidentally, we may notice that in the note appended to the Second Schedule, the amount of compensation arrived in the case of fatal accident claims is required to be reduced by one-third in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. A person, although alive, but when he is not in a position to move and even for every small thing he has to depend upon the services of another, in our opinion, a direction to deduct 1/3rd of the amount from his total income need not always be insisted upon." In personal injury cases, deduction of one-third amount from the total income would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In appropriate cases where Claimant has sustained multiple injuries and had suffered nearly 100% disability and when he is depending on others even for his normal routine, deduction of one-third of the amount from his total income may not be appropriate. In the instant case, as discussed earlier, Claimant has suffered 90% disability and is totally immobilised. We have also seen Ex.P16-photographs from which it is seen that Claimant has much difficulty even for standing. That apart the Claimant has also lost his job and is also discharged from the services of Transport Corporation as medically unfit. In the instant case, as discussed earlier, Claimant has suffered 90% disability and is totally immobilised. We have also seen Ex.P16-photographs from which it is seen that Claimant has much difficulty even for standing. That apart the Claimant has also lost his job and is also discharged from the services of Transport Corporation as medically unfit. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the Claimant and the percentage of disability suffered by him, in our considered view that in this case deduction of one-third amount from the total income need not be made. 25. Taking the monthly income of the Claimant at Rs.6000/-and adopting multiplier "14" and the permanent disability at 90%, compensation for "permanent disability/loss of earning power" is calculated at Rs.9,07,200/- [Rs.6000 x 12 x 14 x 90 / 100 = Rs.9,07,200/-]. 26. Insofar as other heads – Tribunal has awarded compensation for "loss of earning" from 11.07.2000 to 10.07.2001 at Rs.80,000/- as against the claim of Rs.87,000/- and the same is maintained. In so far as, compensation for "transport to hospital", Tribunal has awarded Rs.65,000/- as against the claim of Rs.75,000/-. Claimant has not produced any documents to show that he has spent Rs.75,000/- for transport to hospital and the same is reduced to Rs.25,000/-. Like wise, for "extra-nourishment", Tribunal has awarded Rs.47,000/- as against the claim of Rs.75,000/-. Since the Claimant has not produced any document to substantiate the same, for the head "extra-nourishment" an amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded as compensation. Tribunal awarded Rs.1000/- for "damages to clothing and articles" and Rs.1,37,887/- for "medical expenses" and the same are confirmed. 27. In so far as future "medical expenses", Tribunal has awarded Rs.80,000/- as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/-. Even though, Claimant is said to have continuing his treatment, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to reduce the same and for the head "future medical expenses", an amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded. Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,50,000/- for "mental agony for limping" cannot be maintained. 28. Tribunal has also awarded Rs.50,000/- for "attendant charges" and the same is confirmed. Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- as against the claim of Rs.50,000/- for "future transport expenses". In the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to reduce the same as Rs.25,000/- towards "future transport expenses". 28. Tribunal has also awarded Rs.50,000/- for "attendant charges" and the same is confirmed. Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- as against the claim of Rs.50,000/- for "future transport expenses". In the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to reduce the same as Rs.25,000/- towards "future transport expenses". For the head "pain and suffering", Tribunal awarded Rs.1,50,000/- as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- and the same is confirmed. 29. In modification, the compensation of Rs.21,00,887/- awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.14,51,087/- rounded to Rs.14,51,100/- as under:- Loss of earning from 11.07.2000 to 10.07.2001 : Rs. 80,000.00 Transport charges : Rs. 25,000.00 Extra-nourishment : Rs. 25,000.00 Damages to clothing and article : Rs. 1,000.00 Medical expenses : Rs. 1,37,887.00 Future medical expenses : Rs. 50,000.00 Attendant charges : Rs. 50,000.00 Future transport expenses : Rs. 25,000.00 Pain and suffering : Rs. 1,50,000.00 Loss of earning power : Rs. 9,07,200.00 (6000x12x14x90/100) Total : Rs.14,51,087.00 (rounded to) : Rs.14,51,100.00 30. In so far as interest, Tribunal awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of Claim Petition and the rate of interest awarded by Tribunal is on higher side. As held by the Supreme Court in S.Rajapriyas case [2005 AIR SCW 2542], interest is reduced to 7.5% from the date of filing of Petition. 31. In the result, order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [II Small Causes Court], Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.1915/2001 dated 12.04.2004 is modified and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs in this C.M.A. Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.14,51,100/- which is payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of Claim Petition. It is stated that Appellant-Insurance Company has deposited 50% of the compensation along with accrued interest. Claimant is also said to have withdrawn the the above said deposited 50% of the amount along with accrued interest. Appellant is directed to deposit the balance compensation along with accrued interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the Claimant is permitted to withdraw the said balance amount.