Judgment :- R. Banumathi, J. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to the Claimants for injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident on 23. 2001, Claimant has filed this Appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation. .2. Brief facts are as follows; On 23. 2001, at about 18.00 hours, the Appellant was driving Auto Rickshaw TN-01-J-9691 from T.Nagar to Thousand Lights along G.N.Chetty Road, West to East direction. While he was proceeding near Valmiki Street signal point, on getting signal, the Maruthi van TN-07-W-9599 which was driven in a rash, speed and negligent manner came from the opposite direction suddenly turned towards its right and dashed against the auto-rickshaw, in which the Appellant sustained injuries and his left leg was smashed. He was treated as in-patient at Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai and later at Ramachandra Hospital, Porur and Vijaya Hospital, Chennai. He suffered permanent disability to his left leg. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of Maruthi van driver, the Appellant filed M.A.C.T.O.P.No.4273 of 2001 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Small Causes Court) claiming compensation of Rs.27,50,000/-. Finding that the accident was due to negligent driving of Maruthi driver, the Tribunal held that the insured – 1st Respondent and the 2nd Respondent with whom Maruthi van was insured are liable to pay the compensation. Based on evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and that Claimant has sustained grievous injury, which caused disfiguration of his left leg and taking permanent disability at 60 percent, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.8,00,149/-. Seeking for enhancement of compensation, Claimant has filed this Appeal. 3. Only quantum of compensation is in dispute. Earlier, by the order dated 23. 2007, this Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.10,05,149/-. Feeling aggrieved by the said enhanced quantum of compensation, Appellant has filed S.L.P. before the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C)No.13332 of 2007. Finding that no reasonings are indicated for enhancement, Supreme Court has remitted the matter back to High Court for consideration of the matter afresh. 4. In the accident, Claimant has sustained type V fracture of both bones in left leg, vascular injury in left leg, amputation of 2nd toe in left leg, inter condylar fracture – left tibia, left popliteal artery and vein tibia, acute ischemia left leg, external fixation left tibia (done on 4. 2001). left popliteal artery repair and acid peptic disease. 4. In the accident, Claimant has sustained type V fracture of both bones in left leg, vascular injury in left leg, amputation of 2nd toe in left leg, inter condylar fracture – left tibia, left popliteal artery and vein tibia, acute ischemia left leg, external fixation left tibia (done on 4. 2001). left popliteal artery repair and acid peptic disease. The claimant has taken treatment in Government Royapettah Hosptial from 23. 2001 to 4. 2001 and nature of treatment given to him is stated in Ex.P.35. Later, as seen from Ex.P.1- discharge summary, after discharge from Government Hospital, Claimant has taken treatment as in-patient from Ramachandra Hospital from 4. 2001 to 4. 2001. As seen from Ex.P.9, the Claimant had taken further treatment in Vijaya Health Centre from 4. 2001 to 14. 2001. Later he got himself admitted in Vijaya Heart Foundation. As seen from Ex.P.4, in Vijaya Heart Foundation, Claimant has taken treatment as in-patient for more than two months i.e., from 14. 2001 to 26. 2001. As seen from Exs.P.19, 20 and 36, Claimant had also taken treatment in Kozhikode, Kerala from 19. 2004 to 29. 2004 and again from 13. 2005 to 23. 2005 and 13. 2006 to 13. 2006. He has taken treatment in the Hospital in Kozhikode for his bone and joint. In his evidence, Claimant has stated that for the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he had taken treatment for more than five years. During his treatment, rod was inserted on his left leg. Because blood vessels were cut, blood circulation to left leg was affected. There was fracture in tibia, bone of left leg for which rod was inserted and the second toe of the left leg was affected and fuss was formed. P.W.1 in his evidence has further stated that in spite of his treatment, he is not in a position to carry on his normal avocation of driving. P.W.1 has further stated that he is unable to move his left leg freely and there is shortening of left leg and he continues to have pain and suffering. .5. To prove permanent disability, P.W.2 – Dr.Saichandran was examined. In his evidence, P.W.2 has stated that the Claimant sustained fracture in tibia bone and that rod has been inserted and second toe in the left leg has been affected and fuss formed. .5. To prove permanent disability, P.W.2 – Dr.Saichandran was examined. In his evidence, P.W.2 has stated that the Claimant sustained fracture in tibia bone and that rod has been inserted and second toe in the left leg has been affected and fuss formed. PW.2 further stated that the left leg below knee is bent and there is a shortening of left leg. P.W.2 further opined that Claimant is unable to fold and move freely his left leg and P.W.2 has assessed the permanent disability at 70 percent and issued Ex.P.28 disability certificate. Ex.P.29 and P.30 are the x-rays taken. Nothing substantial was elicited from P.W.2 – Doctor to discredit the percentage of disability. A conjoint reading of Exs.P1, 4, 12, 18, 19, 20 and 36 coupled with the evidence of P.W.2, it is well proved that the Claimant has sustained nearly more than 60–70 percentage of disability. In his evidence, P.W.1 has stated that because of the injuries, there is total disfiguration of his left leg. We have also perused the photographs produced before us from which it was seen that there was complete disfiguration of left leg apart from shortening of leg. The claimant is a driver with 60 -70 percent of disability in his left leg. The Claimant is totally incapacitated from carrying on his normal avocation of driver. At the time of accident, Claimant was aged 29 years. Because of the injuries sustained in the accident and permanent disability and shortening of left leg and its disfiguration, the entire future of the Claimant is now crippled. His physical frame has been shattered affecting his future. Money cannot compensate what has been shattered. We cannot put the Claimant to his original position. But just reasonable compensation has to be given. 6. 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. ...." 7. But just reasonable compensation has to be given. 6. 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. ...." 7. 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". 8. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering, which was enhanced to Rs.50,000/-by the earlier order dated 23. 2007. Claimant has sustained nearly 60 – 70 percent of disability. As we pointed out earlier, Claimant had taken treatment in various hospitals for quite long time. The Claimant has also been continuing his treatment even after discharge from the Hospital. While so, in our considered view, the compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded for pain and suffering appears to be very low. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and continued treatment of Claimant, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering would be reasonable. 9. Insofar as future medical expenses, Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-, which was enhanced to Rs.40,000/- earlier by the order dated 23. 2007. The contention of learned counsel for Insurance Company that there is no evidence as to future medical expenses does not merit acceptance. As pointed out earlier, Claimant has been continuing his treatment for quite some time and therefore Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for future medical expenses is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. .10. 2007. The contention of learned counsel for Insurance Company that there is no evidence as to future medical expenses does not merit acceptance. As pointed out earlier, Claimant has been continuing his treatment for quite some time and therefore Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for future medical expenses is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. .10. Insofar as permanent disablement, Tribunal has taken permanent disability at 60 percent and awarded Rs.60,000/- for permanent disablement. Tribunal pointing out that Claimant was working as a driver and that because of the accident he is now incapacitated from carrying on his avocation, Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- for loss of earning capacity. 11. Pointing out that there cannot be separate compensation under the two heads viz., "permanent disablement" and "loss of earning capacity", Full Bench of this Court in 2006(4) CTC 433 = 2006 ACJ 2703 [Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. Ahmed Thambi and others], has considered the principles of assessment of compensation for permanent disability and on account of earning capacity. Holding that loss of earning capacity and compensation for permanent disability need not be separately assessed. To ensure clarity and transparency in the award of damages, First Bench of this Court has laid down guidelines and also enumerated various heads under which the compensation is to be itemised. "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 non-pecuniary 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 non-pecuniary losses under (a) to (d), permanent disability need not be separately itemised." 12. Applying the ratio of the above decision, in our considered view, Tribunal was not right in awarding compensation under two different heads "permanent disability" and "loss of earning capacity". As pointed out earlier, Claimant is a driver having driving licence. Applying the ratio of the above decision, in our considered view, Tribunal was not right in awarding compensation under two different heads "permanent disability" and "loss of earning capacity". As pointed out earlier, Claimant is a driver having driving licence. Apart from driving autos, he was also possessing driving licence for heavy vehicles. Because of the permanent disability in his left leg, the Claimant would not be in a position to carry on his normal avocation. P.W.2-Dr.Saichandran has issued Ex.P.28 – permanent disability Certificate assessing his disability at 70 percent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the permanent disability of the Claimant could be taken as 60 percent. 13. In 2005 (1) CTC 38 (UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITD 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. Even taking monthly income of the deceased at the lowest i.e., Rs.5,500/-and taking 60 percent disability and adopting multiplier 18, the compensation to be awarded for permanent disability would be Rs.7,12,800/- (Rs.5,500 x 12 x 18 x 60/100). In our considered view, the Tribunal did not keep in view the extent of permanent disability sustained by the Claimant and that he is now incapacitated in carrying on his normal avocation of driving. The compensation to be awarded for personal injuries has to be reasonable and not meagre or niggardly. 14. Insofar as other heads, Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- for loss of income, Rs.5,000/-for nutritious food and another Rs.50,000/- for mental agony. Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/-for transport to Hospital and Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of marital life and Rs.2,85,149/- for medical expenses. In our considered view, the quantum of compensation awarded under these heads is quite reasonable warranting no interference. Compensation awarded to the Claimant is enhanced to Rs.12,97,949/- as under: Awarded Enhanced by Tribunal by High Court Loss of income during treatment period : Rs. 50,000.00 Rs. 50,000.00 2. Pain and suffering : Rs. 25,000.00 Rs. 50,000.00 3. For nutritious food: Rs. 5,000.00 Rs. 5,000.00 4. Mental agony: Rs. 50,000.00 Rs. 50,000.00 5.Future Medical Expenses : Rs. 20,000.00 Rs. 40,000.00 6.Transport to Hospital: Rs. 5,000.00 Rs. 5,000.00 7. Loss of proper marital life: Rs. 1,00,000.00 Rs.1,00,000.00 8. Medical Expenses: Rs.2,85,149.00 Rs.2,85,149.00 9. Permanent disability: Rs. 60,000.00 ) Rs.7,12,800.00 10. Loss of earning capacity: Rs.2,00,000.00) Total : Rs.8,00,149.00 Rs.12,97,949.00 15. 5,000.00 Rs. 5,000.00 4. Mental agony: Rs. 50,000.00 Rs. 50,000.00 5.Future Medical Expenses : Rs. 20,000.00 Rs. 40,000.00 6.Transport to Hospital: Rs. 5,000.00 Rs. 5,000.00 7. Loss of proper marital life: Rs. 1,00,000.00 Rs.1,00,000.00 8. Medical Expenses: Rs.2,85,149.00 Rs.2,85,149.00 9. Permanent disability: Rs. 60,000.00 ) Rs.7,12,800.00 10. Loss of earning capacity: Rs.2,00,000.00) Total : Rs.8,00,149.00 Rs.12,97,949.00 15. In the result, the compensation awarded to the Claimant in M.C.O.P.No.4273 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Small Causes Court), Chennai is enhanced to Rs.12,97,949.00 payable with interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum and the Civil Miscellaneous Application is allowed. It was stated that the Insurance Company has already deposited Rs.10,05,149/- along with accrued interest as per the earlier Order dated 23. 2007 of the Bench. Respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with accrued interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, Claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount along with accrued interest. However, there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.