Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. Heard Mrs. Ramya V.Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Mr. S.V. Vasanthakumar, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/Transport Corporation. 2. Being aggrieved over the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2013 passed in M.C.O.P.No.3188 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/IV Small Causes Court, Chennai, the claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. It is the case of the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal that a bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-6994 belonging to the 1st respondent Transport Corporation, in which he was a passenger, dashed against a stationed lorry bearing Registration No.TN-51-R-3443, thereby causing an accident, due to which he sustained injuries. According to the appellant/claimant, the said lorry was stationed in an area not earmarked for parking and that too without any indicator lamp. The 2nd respondent herein is the owner of the Lorry and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the 2nd respondent's vehicle. Alleging that the drivers of the 1st respondent Bus and the 3rd respondent Lorry are jointly and severally responsible for the accident, the appellant/claimant sought a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation from the owners of the said vehicles and the insurer of the Lorry. 4. Before the Tribunal, both the 1st respondent and the 3rd respondent resisted the claim of the appellant/claimant and on behalf of the appellant/claimant, three witnesses were examined. The appellant/claimant was examined as P.W.1. One Dr. K.J. Mathiazahagan and one Dr. R. Rajappa were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3, respectively and as many as 24 exhibits were marked. On the side of the 1st respondent Transport Corporation, one Mr. T. Raja, driver of the Transport Corporation Bus was examined as R.W.1. 5. On appreciation of the materials placed before it, the Tribunal fixed the liability of the accident on the driver of the 1st respondent Transport Corporation Bus and awarded a sum of Rs.12,55,600/- as compensation to the claimant together with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit. The break-up details of the award are as under: Sl.No. Description Amount awarded by Tribunal 1. Loss of Income for 2 ½ months @ Rs.6,500/- p.m. Rs. 13,750.00 2. Transportation charges Rs. 40,000.00 3. Extra Nourishment Rs. 20,000.00 4. Medical Expenses Rs.3,70,384.00 5. Mental agony & physical discomfort Rs. 75,000.00 6. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000.00 7. The break-up details of the award are as under: Sl.No. Description Amount awarded by Tribunal 1. Loss of Income for 2 ½ months @ Rs.6,500/- p.m. Rs. 13,750.00 2. Transportation charges Rs. 40,000.00 3. Extra Nourishment Rs. 20,000.00 4. Medical Expenses Rs.3,70,384.00 5. Mental agony & physical discomfort Rs. 75,000.00 6. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000.00 7. Permanent Disability(Rs.5,500/- x 12 x 13 x 80%) Rs.6,86,400.00 Total Rs.12,55,534.00 Rounded Off to Rs.12,55,600.00 Seeking enhancement of the award of the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant is before this Court by way of the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that the permanent disability of the appellant/claimant fixed by the Tribunal at 80% is on the lower side and that considering the nature of grievous injuries sustained by him, it may be enhanced to 100%. Further, he would contend that the income fixed by the Tribunal is very low. The injured claimant, who is a Pastor by profession would definitely be earning more than Rs.6,500/- per month and the fixation of income of the claimant at Rs.5,500/- is unfair and unsustainable. It is also his contention that no amount was awarded towards loss of amenities. In all, learned counsel sought enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/Transport Corporation would vehemently contend that the compensation claimed by the appellant/claimant is excessive and has no basis. Further he would contend that the various captions under which compensation is claimed are imaginary and made for the purpose of the claim. He has also contended that in the absence of any claim towards loss of amenities, no amount could be attributed for the same. Though the lorry insured with the third respondent was also involved in the accident, the entire negligence and liability cannot be cast upon the 1st respondent / Transport Corporation. 8. We have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 9. On a circumspection of the facts, it is seen that on 10.02.2010 at about 05:00 hours, while the appellant/claimant was travelling in a bus bearing Reg.No.TN-01-N-6994 belonging to the 1st respondent Transport Corporation, which was proceeding from Chennai to Trichy, it hit a stationed lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-51-R-3443 thereby causing an accident, due to which, the appellant/claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries. On a circumspection of the facts, it is seen that on 10.02.2010 at about 05:00 hours, while the appellant/claimant was travelling in a bus bearing Reg.No.TN-01-N-6994 belonging to the 1st respondent Transport Corporation, which was proceeding from Chennai to Trichy, it hit a stationed lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-51-R-3443 thereby causing an accident, due to which, the appellant/claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries. Alleging that the 1st respondent/owner of the bus, 2nd respondent/owner of the Lorry and the 3rd respondent/Insurer of the Lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, the appellant/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 3 of MACT Rules, seeking a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation. Though the respondents resisted the claim of the appellant/claimant, the Tribunal, on examination of the materials placed before it, awarded a sum of Rs.12,55,600/- as compensation payable to the appellant/claimant. As regards negligence, the Tribunal, after examination of oral and documentary evidence, fixed the liability on the driver of the State Transport Corporation Bus, as he drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner. 10. Since this appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation, we feel that the liability of negligence fixed by the Tribunal on the driver of the 1st respondent/Transport Corporation need not be interfered. Now, the only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant/claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation and if so, in what respects? 11. To determine the correctness of the quantum awarded by the Tribunal, a perusal of the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant, treatment undergone by him and the evidence put forth by the Doctors as regards his disability, is necessary. 12. Firstly, the correctness of permanent disability fixed by the Tribunal has to be examined. Ex.P1 (OP Chit) would show that the appellant/claimant sustained fracture of both bones right leg joint dorsum ankle, crush injury right foot, ankle injury left foot and abrasion left knee. From the Discharge Summaries, it is seen that he had initially taken treatment at Government Hospital, Ulundurpet and referred for further treatment from 10.02.2010 to 24.02.2010. Ex.P1 (OP Chit) would show that the appellant/claimant sustained fracture of both bones right leg joint dorsum ankle, crush injury right foot, ankle injury left foot and abrasion left knee. From the Discharge Summaries, it is seen that he had initially taken treatment at Government Hospital, Ulundurpet and referred for further treatment from 10.02.2010 to 24.02.2010. Later, he was admitted in CSI Mission General Hospital, Woraiyur, Trichy as inpatient, where, it was diagnosed that he sustained crush injury over right foot, crush injury over left foot with traumatic amputation of 1st toe, for which wound debridement of both foot and multiple K wire fixation to the right foot was done on 10.02.2010. On 16.02.2010, his right leg below knee was amputated and disarticulation of 2nd tow was done. Thereafter, the appellant/claimant took treatment as inpatient at Y.V.K. Hospital Enterprises (P) Ltd. from 25.02.2010 to 10.04.2010 and amputation below ankle on left lower limb was done on 27.02.2010. Further, he was treated as inpatient from 03.06.2010 to 09.06.2010 at Rathenam Nursing Home for DM with speticimia with renal edema. Ex.P6 – Referral form shows that the appellant/claimant suffered diffuse macular edema. Ex.P8– Eye Examination Certificate reveals that he has suffered severe non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy with maculopathy in both eyes, for which, pan retinal photo coagulation with grid laser was done in both eyes. Ex.P9 – Discharge Summary shows that the claimant had undergone surgery on 27.12.2011 for the right eye. 12a. One Dr. K.J. Mathiazhagan, who was examined as P.W.2 before the Tribunal, after clinical examining the appellant/claimant, his medical records and X-ray, deposed that the appellant/claimant sustained crush injury in both legs, his right leg below knee has been amputated and that his left five fingers were amputated, due to which, he cannot walk without any support and accordingly fixed the total permanent disability of the claimant at 85% and issued a Disability Certificate to that effect, which was marked as Ex.P23. Another Doctor, by name Dr. R. Rajappa, who was examined as P.W.3, deposed that the claimant suffered severe non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy with maculopathy both eyes, for which pan retinal photo coagulation with grid laser was done in both eyes, due to which his vision is affected and thereby assessed the disability of the claimant at 60%. Another Doctor, by name Dr. R. Rajappa, who was examined as P.W.3, deposed that the claimant suffered severe non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy with maculopathy both eyes, for which pan retinal photo coagulation with grid laser was done in both eyes, due to which his vision is affected and thereby assessed the disability of the claimant at 60%. Further, in Ex.P17 – copy of the Disability Certificate issued by the Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, the permanent disability of the claimant is fixed at 80%. Since the disability assessed by P.W.2 with regard to the amputation of right leg was higher, considering the percentage of disability to be adopted under the Workmen Compensation Act, the Tribunal fixed the permanent disability of the claimant at 80%, as assessed by the Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine. 12b. A perusal of all the documents referred to above would show that the appellant/claimant has sustained crush injuries in both legs and his right leg below knee has been amputated. Considering the nature of injuries and the treatment given to the appellant/claimant, in our view, the Tribunal has rightly taken into account the permanent disability assessed by the Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine at 80% and it does not require any interference. 13. Secondly, coming to the aspect of avocation and income of the appellant/claimant, it is seen that the appellant/claimant has averred before the Tribunal that he was a Pastor as also one of the Trustees of Kaber Nadhi Ministries earning Rs.15,000/- per month. But, there is no document to prove his monthly income. In the absence of any concrete evidence, as per the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma's case and based on the documentary evidence vide Ex.P14 – copy of Trust Deed and Ex.P15 – Letter Pad & Visiting Card, which would show that the appellant/claimant was a Pastor closely associated with Church activities and that he was one of the Trustees of Kaber Nadhi Ministries, the Tribunal fixed Rs.5,500/- as his monthly income. 13a. Further, Ex.P5 – Discharge Summary would show that the appellant/claimant was aged 46 years at the time of accident. 13a. Further, Ex.P5 – Discharge Summary would show that the appellant/claimant was aged 46 years at the time of accident. Taking note of the permanent disability of the claimant at 80% and adopting the multiplier of 13' as per II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and also as per the decision rendered in Sarla Verma's case, the Tribunal arrived at a sum of Rs.6,86,400/-(Rs.5,500/- x 12 x 13' x 80%) as compensation towards permanent disability. 13b. The prime contention which is raised before us is, as to whether the Tribunal is right in fixing the income of the appellant/ claimant at Rs.5,500/- even after noticing the evidence furnished in Ex.P14, Trust Deed and also Ex.P16 – Certificate of Membership issued by the Christ Church to the effect that he had been associated with the Church activities. To substantiate his stand that the fixation of income by the Tribunal is on the lower side, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has relied on a judgment in the case of Syed Sadiq vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.[2014 (1) TN MAC 459 (SC)], wherein it has been held as under: “8. The Appellant / Claimant in his Appeal further claimed that he had been earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. by doing vegetable vending work. The High Court however, considered the loss of income at Rs.3,500/- p.m. considering that the Claimant did not produce any document to establish his loss of income. It is difficult for us to convince ourselves as to how a labour involved in an unorganized sector doing his own business is expected to produce documents to prove his monthly income. In this regard, this Court, in the case of Ramchandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Limited, 2011 (13) SCC 236 , has held as under: “13. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the Appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as a Coolie and was earning Rs.4,500/- per month at the time of accident. This claim is reduced by the Tribunal to a sum of Rs.3,000/- only on the assumption that wages of the labourer during the relevant period viz., in the year 2004, was Rs.100/- per day. This assumption in our view has no basis. Before the Tribunal, though Insurance Company was served, it did not choose to appear before the Court nor did it repudiated the claim of the Claimant. This assumption in our view has no basis. Before the Tribunal, though Insurance Company was served, it did not choose to appear before the Court nor did it repudiated the claim of the Claimant. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the claim of the Claimant and determined the monthly earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- p.m. Secondly, the Appellant was working as a Coolie and therefore, we cannot expect him to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the Claimant, in our view, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the Claimant. 14. We hasten to add that in all cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the Claimant in the absence of supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guess work, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time. In the present case, Appellant was working as a Coolie and in and around the date of the accident, the wage of the labourer was between Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day or Rs.4,500/- per month. In our view, the claim was honest and bona fide and, therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the monthly earning of the Appellant from Rs.4,500/- to Rs.3,000/- per month. We, therefore, accept his statement that his monthly earning was Rs.4,500/-.” 9. There is no reason, in the instant case for the Tribunal and the High Court to ask for evidence of monthly income of the Appellant / Claimant. On the other hand, going by the present state of economy and the rising prices in Agricultural produces, we are inclined to believe that a vegetable vendor is reasonably capable of earning Rs.6,500/- per month.” 13c. On the other hand, going by the present state of economy and the rising prices in Agricultural produces, we are inclined to believe that a vegetable vendor is reasonably capable of earning Rs.6,500/- per month.” 13c. Keeping in mind the above judgment, if we look at the present case, what is conveyed to us is that there is no dispute that the appellant/claimant was involved in congregation in the capacity of a Pastor and the perplexity which arises in this case is the determination of income of the person like that of the appellant/claimant. It is to be noted that the income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government employees and those employed in Private Sectors. But, it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. No doubt, going by the present state of economy, the income of the appellant/claimant also increases periodically. Also, it cannot be disputed that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant/claimant, who was an active preacher, has become paralyzed. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of income of the appellant/claimant for having become a lifelong handicapped and no amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. The object is to compensate such injury so far as money can compensate, because it is impossible to equate human sufferings or personal deprivations with money, as it cannot renew a broken or shattered physical frame. While awarding compensation in motor accident cases, hypothetical consideration with sympathy is necessary and the Court cannot act mechanically. 13d. Thus, the findings of the Tribunal in respect of fixation of monthly income to the extent that there is no concrete evidence to prove his monthly income, have no legs to stand, and being unsustainable, the income is liable to be re-fixed. Therefore, we are not hesitant to enhance the monthly income of the appellant/claimant from Rs.5,500/- to Rs.6,500/-. 14. Thus, the findings of the Tribunal in respect of fixation of monthly income to the extent that there is no concrete evidence to prove his monthly income, have no legs to stand, and being unsustainable, the income is liable to be re-fixed. Therefore, we are not hesitant to enhance the monthly income of the appellant/claimant from Rs.5,500/- to Rs.6,500/-. 14. In view of the above, fixing the permanent disability of the appellant/claimant at 80%, his monthly income at Rs.6,500/- and adopting the multiplier of 13', the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards permanent disability is enhanced to Rs.8,11,200/- (Rs.6,500/- x 12 x 13 x 80%). 15. In view of the re-fixation of monthly income at Rs.6,500/-, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head 'loss of income for 2 ½ months' is re-worked and the enhanced compensation arrives at Rs.16,250/- (Rs.6,500/- p.m. X 2 ½ months). 16. While awarding compensation under the head 'pain and suffering', the Tribunal, taking note of the fact that the appellant/claimant sustained crush injury in both legs, his left leg below ankle was amputated and his right leg below knee was amputated, awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the same, which in our opinion, is certainly on the lower side. It is pertinent to mention here that compensating the pain and suffering of an injured with money is invariably difficult, but no other process can be devised than that of making a monetary assessment. 16a. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Kumbakonam vs. Ahmed Thambi and others, reported in 2006 (3) LW 1025 , was pleased to observe as under: “12. Non-pecuniary loss Generally non-pecuniary losses in cases of personal injury as a result of a tortious act may cover the following heads of damages: (1) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in the future; (2) damages to compensate for loss of amenities of life; (3) damages for the loss of expectation of life, where the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened on account of the injury; and (4) damages for inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration, disfigurement and mental stress in life. In Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh, (1990) 3 SCC 723 , the Supreme Court, while rejecting the argument that the sum awarded for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life etc. termed as general damages should be taken to be covered by damages granted for loss of earnings, observed as follows: "The pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life which is a resultant and permanent fact occasioned by the nature of injuries received by the claimant and the ordeal he had to undergo. If money be any solace, the grant of Rs.20,000/- to the claimant represents that solace. Money solace is the answer discovered by the Low of Torts. No substitute has yet been found to replace the element of money. This, on the face of it appeals to us as a distinct head, quite apart from the inability to earn livelihood on the basis of incapacity or disability which is quite different. The incapacity or disability to earn a livelihood would have to be viewed not only in-praesenti but in future on reasonable expectancies and taking into account deprival of earnings of a conceivable period. This head being totally different cannot in our view overlap the grant of compensation under the head of pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. One head relates to the impairment of person's capacity to earn, the other relates to the pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself." 13. Pain and suffering: 'Pain and suffering' was first recognised by law as a ground for grant of damages, per Lord Halsbury, L.C. in The Mediana, (1960) A.C. 113 at p.116. It is enumerated as a distinct factor from bodily injury in the passage extracted from the judgment of Cockburn C.J. in Philips v. South Western Rail Co., (1879) 4 Q.B.D. 406. This head of damages includes both physical pain and mental anguish caused by the injury. A person is entitled to damages for the mental suffering caused by the knowledge that his life has been shortened and that his capacity for enjoying life has been curtailed through physical handicap. Damages for pain and suffering are clearly incapable of exact estimation and their assessment must necessarily be a matter of degree. They must be assessed on the basis of giving reasonable compensation for the actual prospective suffering entailed. Damages for pain and suffering are clearly incapable of exact estimation and their assessment must necessarily be a matter of degree. They must be assessed on the basis of giving reasonable compensation for the actual prospective suffering entailed. As Bramwell L.J. said, the proper direction for a jury was: "You must give the plaintiff a compensation for his pain and bodily suffering of course it is almost impossible for you to give to an injured man what can be strictly called a compensation, but you must take a reasonable view of the case and must consider under all the circumstances, what is a fair amount to be awarded to him." As Greer, L.J. said in Heaps v. Perrite Ltd., (1937) 2 All E.R. 60, we have to take into account not only the suffering which he had immediately after the accident but the suffering that he will have throughout his life in future.” 16b. Also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1995 ACJ 366, was pleased to hold as follows: “17. The claim under SI. No. 16 for pain and suffering and for loss of amenities of life under SI. No. 17, are claims for non-pecuniary loss. The appellant has claimed lump sum amount of Rs 3,00,000 each under the two heads. The High Court has allowed Rs 1,00,000 against the claims of Rs 6,00,000. When compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future life. The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the award must reflect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration. According to us, as the appellant was an advocate having good practice in different courts and as because of the accident he has been crippled and can move only on wheelchair, the High Court should have allowed an amount of Rs 1,50,000 in respect of claim for pain and suffering and Rs 1,50,000 in respect of loss of amenities of life. We direct payment of Rs.3,00,000 (Rupees three lakhs only) against the claim of Rs. 6,00,000 under the heads "Pain and Suffering" and "Loss of amenities of life".” 16c. We direct payment of Rs.3,00,000 (Rupees three lakhs only) against the claim of Rs. 6,00,000 under the heads "Pain and Suffering" and "Loss of amenities of life".” 16c. Thus, in the light of the above decisions and also considering the pitiable condition of the appellant/claimant that he has to undergo pain and suffering throughout his life, we hereby increase the amount awarded under the head 'pain and suffering' from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. 17. Though learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head 'loss of amenities', taking note of the fact that it is just a case of injury, no amount need be awarded under the said head. 18. The next head for consideration is 'mental agony and physical discomfort'. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the deposition of P.W.2 to the effect that the appellant/claimant, due to amputation of right leg below knee and left leg below ankle, can walk only with the help of walker and has to depend on others to do his work, awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- under the said head. It was also stated that he cannot walk without an artificial limb or stick. In this regard, it would again be worth referring to the judgment of this Court in the case of Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd., wherein, it was held as under: "26. The Tribunal had disallowed the claim under the heading inability to participate in sports and games. Any youth and particularly school going youth of normal health definitely takes part in some games or physical exercises or competition or in ACC/NCC, while at school. This accident has totally disabled the appellant and under this heading a nominal sum of Rs. 5,400 is awarded. The award of Rs. 1,00,000 towards mental agony and torture due to amputation as claimed cannot be held to be excessive. The compensation awarded towards pain and suffering at Rs. 1,00,000 also cannot be held to be excessive. The compensation towards the continuing permanent disability has been assessed at Rs. 2,00,000 by the Tribunal below. We do not find any reason to interfere with this award." 18a. Thus, in view of the above, it can be visualized as to how a person, who is physically handicapped, would have mental agony and discomfort throughout his life. The compensation towards the continuing permanent disability has been assessed at Rs. 2,00,000 by the Tribunal below. We do not find any reason to interfere with this award." 18a. Thus, in view of the above, it can be visualized as to how a person, who is physically handicapped, would have mental agony and discomfort throughout his life. Therefore, we feel it appropriate to modify the compensation under the head 'mental agony and physical discomfort' to Rs.1,00,000/-. 19. Except to the above modification, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads stand confirmed. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.12,55,600/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby increased to a sum of Rs.14,58,000/- and the break-up details of the modified compensation are as follows: S.No. Description Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court Remarks 1. Loss of Income for 2 ½ months @ Rs.6,500/- p.m. Rs. 13,750.00 Rs. 16,250.00 Increased by Rs.2,500/- 2. Transportation Rs. 40,000.00 Rs. 40,000.00 Confirmed 3. Extra Nourishment Rs. 20,000.00 Rs. 20,000.00 Confirmed 4. Medical Expenses Rs. 3,70,384.00 Rs. 3,70,384.00 Confirmed 5. Mental agony & physical Discomfort Rs. 75,000.00 Rs. 1,00,000.00 Increased by Rs.25,000/- 6. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000.00 Rs. 1,00,000.00 Increased by Rs.50,000.00 7. Permanent Disability (Rs.6,500/- x 12 x 13 x 80%) Rs. 6,86,400.00 Rs. 8,11,200.00 Increased by Rs.1,24,800/- Total Rs.12,55,534.00 Rs.14,57,834.00 Enhanced by Rs.2,03,200/- Rounded off to Rs.12,55,600.00 Rs.14,58,000.00 Rs.14,58,000/- 20. It is informed by the learned counsel for the parties that no amount has been deposited by the 1st respondent till date. Therefore, we hereby direct the 1st respondent / SETC Transport Corporation to deposit the entire compensation awarded by the Tribunal including the enhanced compensation awarded by this Court, in toto, a sum of Rs.14,58,000/-(Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand only) along with accrued interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.3188 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/IV Small Causes Court, Chennai, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this judgment. It is needless to mention that on such deposit, the appellant/claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount with accrued interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization. With the above modification and direction, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.