Judgment :- R. BANUMATHI, J. Being aggrieved with the award of compensation of Rs.13,94,302/-for the injuries sustained by 1st Respondent-Claimant, Appellant-Insurance Company has filed this Appeal. .2. Brief facts are that on 26. 2001 at about 8.15 P.M. on Mudaliarpet, Cudalore Road, Pondicherry, 1st Respondent was riding his cycle from north to south on the extreme left side of road. When the 1st Respondent was proceeding near Whirlpool Home Appliance, the bus bearing registration No.TN-49-C 3039 belonging to the Respondents 2 to 6 came from behind driven in a rash and negligent manner hit against the 1st Respondent. Due to the accident, 1st Respondent sustained fracture of left Ocleurenon and multiple head injuries resulting into two operations in head. After the accident, 1st Respondent was admitted in Government General Hospital, Pondicherry where he had taken treatment for one day and thereafter 1st Respondent was admitted in Appollo Speciality Hospital, Chennai. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver, Claimant filed Petition under Sec.166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. 3. Wife of the 1st Respondent-Claimant was examined as PW1 and one Ravindran and Bharathi were examined as PWs.2 and 4 respectively and Dr.C.Mohanraj and Dr.Ayyadurai were examined as PWs.3 and 5 respectively. Exs.A1 to A18 were marked on the side of Claimant. No evidence was adduced on the side of Respondents and no documents were marked. .4. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal held that accident was proved to be due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver. Based on discharge summary [Exs.A2 and A3] and disability certificate [Ex.A17] and oral evidence of PWs.1 and 5, Tribunal held that Claimant suffered 70% of permanent disability and awarded compensation of Rs.9,58,860/- for permanent disability. Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.13,94,302/- under various heads as follows:- Loss of earning power (Rs.7610/- x 12 x 15 x 70%):Rs. 9,58,860.00 Pain and suffering:Rs. 5,000.00 Medical expenses:Rs. 3,66,442.00 Future physiotherapy treatment:Rs. 54,000.00 Extra-nourishment and transport charges:Rs. 10,000.00 .Total:Rs.13,94,302.00 5. In the accident, Claimant sustained severe head injuries and also fracture besides haemorrhage and he became unconscious. Claimant had also sustained right temporal heamorrhage contusion extra-dural haematoma, sub-dural haematoma; sub arachnoid haemorrhage; fracture right mastoid bone and fracture left Ocleurenon. Two surgeries were performed on 24.06.2001 and 24.07.2001. In her evidence, PW1 has stated that Claimant has become immobilised and is bed-ridden and lost his speech. Claimant had also sustained right temporal heamorrhage contusion extra-dural haematoma, sub-dural haematoma; sub arachnoid haemorrhage; fracture right mastoid bone and fracture left Ocleurenon. Two surgeries were performed on 24.06.2001 and 24.07.2001. In her evidence, PW1 has stated that Claimant has become immobilised and is bed-ridden and lost his speech. On account of physical and mental disability, Claimant has filed Claim Petition through his wife as per Order 32, Rule 1 & 16 read with Sec.151 C.P.C. by filing application before the Tribunal. Leave was also granted by the Tribunal in I.A.No.2746/2001, permitting the injured Claimant to file Claim Petition through his wife. .6. Learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company submitted that absolutely there is no evidence to show that Claimant has lost his power of thinking and speech and there is no evidence to show that Claimant had any psychiatric problem and in the absence of materials, Claimant cannot be taken to be a person of unsound mind to permit him to make the Claim through his wife. Learned counsel for Appellant raises strong objection as to maintainability of Claim Petition filed by the Claimant through his wife. Main contention of Appellant is that Claimant turns himself as person of unsound mind and there is no evidence that Claimant had any psychiatric treatment. It was further argued that in the absence of any material, on the basis of ipse dixit of PW1, Claimant cannot be said to be the person of unsound mind. 7. It is not necessary for us to narrate entire facts in detail such as, as to how the accident occurred and who was negligent and who is liable to pay compensation. It is for the reason that these things are recorded infavour of Claimant and secondly, none of the findings are under challenge, only quantum is under dispute. .8. Giving physiotherapy treatment to the Claimant, in his evidence PW4-Bharathi has stated that he is visiting the Claimant in his house and that Claimant is bed-ridden and unable to move and not able to talk. The relevant portion of evidence of PW4 reads as under:- .Tamil 9. In his evidence, PW5-Dr.Ayyadurai attached to Apollo Speciality Hospital, Chennai has stated that Claimant has been paralysed and incapacitated on account of injuries sustained in the accident. In his evidence, PW5 has further stated that Claimant has got neuro problem and hardly there is any possibility of further improvement. In his evidence, PW5-Dr.Ayyadurai attached to Apollo Speciality Hospital, Chennai has stated that Claimant has been paralysed and incapacitated on account of injuries sustained in the accident. In his evidence, PW5 has further stated that Claimant has got neuro problem and hardly there is any possibility of further improvement. The relevant portion of evidence of PW5 reads as under:- Tamil Having regard to the evidence of PW5-Dr.Ayyadurai, in our considered view, Tribunal has rightly allowed the application in I.A.No.2746/2001 permitting the Claimant to file Claim Petition through his wife. It is pertinent to note that Appellant-Insurance Company has not raised any objection in the counter or in the evidence as to maintainability of Claim Petition filed through next friend-wife. Contention raised by the Appellant-Insurance Company as to maintainability of Claim Petition is liable to be rejected. 10. As we pointed out earlier, Claimant sustained right temporal heamorrhage contusion extra-dural haematoma; sub-dural haematoma; sub arachnoid hemorrhage; fracture right mastoid bone and fracture left Ocleurenon. Immediately, after the accident, Claimant was taken to Government General Hospital, Pondicherry and from where he was taken to Apollo Speciality Hospital, Chennai. Two surgeries were done on 26. 2001 and 27. 2001 i.e. right temporal craniotomy, evacuation of subdural haemorrhage and contusion and removal of bone flap done on 26. 2001. In his evidence, PW5-Dr.Ayyadurai has stated that inspite of intensive treatment, Claimant is still suffering from Post Head Injury Sequale and he is undergoing physiotherapy treatment regularly. 11. PW5-Dr.Ayyadurai was examined to prove the nature of treatment and percentage of permanent disablement. Ex.A17 is the disability certificate in which Dr.Siddhartha Ghosh who treated the Claimant has assessed the permanent disablement at 70%. Opinion of Dr.Siddhartha Ghosh as seen from Ex.A17 is as under;- "Patient has been paralysed and incapacitated on account of the injuries received at the accident. Patient has become fully dependant on others. He need continuous and full time nursing attention." Reiterating opinion of Dr.Siddhartha Ghosh, in his evidence PW5-Dr.Ayyadurai who is associated with Dr.Siddhartha Ghosh has also stated that left side of Claimant is totally paralysed and that he is totally dependant on others. PW5 has further stated that nerves system is affected and there cannot be much improvement. 12. He need continuous and full time nursing attention." Reiterating opinion of Dr.Siddhartha Ghosh, in his evidence PW5-Dr.Ayyadurai who is associated with Dr.Siddhartha Ghosh has also stated that left side of Claimant is totally paralysed and that he is totally dependant on others. PW5 has further stated that nerves system is affected and there cannot be much improvement. 12. During the argument, learned counsel for 1st Respondent has submitted that even after the award, 1st Respondent has taken treatment in Apollo Speciality Hospital, Chennai and underwent surgeries apart from taking treatment in Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, Pondicherry. In C.M.P.No.620/2009, Claimant has filed discharge summaries showing he is continued treatment as additional documents and C.M.P.No.620/2009 is allowed. The above discharge summaries issued by Apollo Speciality Hospital are ordered to be received as additional evidence. 13. It was also brought to our notice that the matter has been referred to Lok-Adalat and considering his immobile condition by the Insurance Company Doctor, Appellant-Insurance Company deputed Dr.G.Rajaraman, Neuro Surgeon Specialist, Government General Hospital, Pondicherry who examined the Claimant on 19. 2006 and also given a report of permanent disablement and health condition of Claimant to the Insurance Company. Appellant-Insurance Company has not chosen to produce that report of the Doctor. Appellant-Insurance Company has not come forward with their own document. 14. Claimant was working as driver in Primary Health Centre, Ariyankuppam, Pondicherry and was earning Rs.7610/- as seen from Ex.A16 salary certificate. At the time of accident, Claimant was aged 45 years. Permanent disability was assessed at 70%. Having regard to his age, Tribunal has adopted multiplier 15. In appropriate cases, Court can adopt multiplier and arrive at the quantum of compensation for permanent disablement. From the evidence of PWs.1, 4 and 5, permanent disablement of Claimant is established. Physical frame of Claimant has been shattered. He has been bed-ridden 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. 15. In (1874) 4 QBD 406 [Phillips v. Western Railway Co.), Field,J, while emphasizing that damages must be full and adequate, held thus:- "you cannot put the plaintiff back again into his original position, but you must bring your reasonable common sense to bear, and you must always recollect that this is the only occasion on which compensation can be given. In (1874) 4 QBD 406 [Phillips v. Western Railway Co.), Field,J, while emphasizing that damages must be full and adequate, held thus:- "you cannot put the plaintiff back again into his original position, but you must bring your reasonable common sense to bear, and you must always recollect that this is the only occasion on which compensation can be given. The plaintiff can never sue again for it. You have, therefore, now to give him compensation once and for all. He has done no wrong, he has suffered a wrong at the hands of defendants and you must take care to give him full and fair compensation for which he has suffered." 16. 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. ...." 17. 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 follows:-"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". 18. Attention has also been drawn to Sunil Kumars case [ 2007 (12) SCALE 792 : 2008-2-LW 18]. In the said decision, the Supreme Court held as under:- "9. Taking into consideration the present income of the appellant as Rs.4,000/- per month; and the permanent disability of 45%suffered by him, we are of the view that the capacity of the appellant to earn in future would be reduced by Rs.1,800/-per month approximately. In the said decision, the Supreme Court held as under:- "9. Taking into consideration the present income of the appellant as Rs.4,000/- per month; and the permanent disability of 45%suffered by him, we are of the view that the capacity of the appellant to earn in future would be reduced by Rs.1,800/-per month approximately. If 1/3rd is deducted towards miscellaneous expenses, the loss of income comes to Rs.1,200/-per month which, in turn, comes to Rs.14,400/- per annum. Appellant was 29 years of age at the time of accident. Taking the multiplier to be 18 [as per Second Schedule to Section 163A of the Act], the total loss of income comes to Rs.2,59,200/-." In that case, the injured suffered permanent disability of 45% and Supreme Court adopted multiplier of 18. It was held that by reason of disability suffered by the Claimant, his earning capacity would be reduced and multiplier has to be adopted. In the instant case, Claimant has become totally immobile. In our considered view, Tribunal was justified in adopting multiplier 15 and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for loss of earning is very reasonable. 19. Tribunal has also awarded Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.3,66,442/- for medical expenses, Rs.54,000/- for future physiotherapy treatment and Rs.10,000/- for extra-nourishment and transport charges. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under those heads are also very reasonable warranting no interference. 20. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. C.M.P.No.620/2009 is allowed and C.M.P.No.621/2009 is disposed of. No costs. By the order dated 26. 2004 in C.M.P.No.9422/2004, Appellant-Insurance Company has deposited the entire amount. Out of which, Claimant has already withdrawn Rs.2,16,365/- and Rs.3,00,000/-[Rs.5,16,365/-] respectively as per order in C.M.P.No.16579/2004 dated 211. 2004 and order in C.M.P.No.5469/2006 dated 16. 2009 respectively. Claimant is permitted to withdraw the balance amount along with accrued interest immediately after receipt of copy of this Judgment.