Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. Heard Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for Mr.D.Venkatachalam, learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation and Mr.A.A.Venkatesan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.1064 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/V Small Causes Court, Chennai, the State Transport Corporation, Salem is before this Court by way of this appeal. 3. It was averred by the respondent/claimant before the Tribunal that on 21.07.2008, at about 2:15 hours, a private bus bearing Registration No.KA-04-AA-9199, in which he was travelling as a passenger from Bangalore to Chennai, stopped at the extreme left side of the Bangalore High Road near Valland Ramam Coot Road, Pallikonda, Vellore District, to carry out puncture work. At that time, the appellant/Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N-1948, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the stationed bus on its right rear portion, thereby resulted in an accident. The respondent/claimant, who was sitting at the rear corner seat of the private bus, sustained crush injury on her spinal cord, legs and hips and was immediately taken to the nearby hospital for treatment. Alleging that the driver of the appellant Transport Corporation was responsible for the accident, the respondent/claimant sought a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as compensation from the appellant Transport Corporation. 4. Resisting the claim of the respondent/claimant, the appellant/Transport Corporation made a statement before the Tribunal to the effect that there was no rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of their Transport Corporation and that he drove the bus slowly, carefully and cautiously and the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the private bus, which was suddenly stopped by its driver on the highway road without any indication. Thus, the appellant/Transport Corporation denied its liability to pay compensation and sought dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the respondent/claimant, three witnesses were examined and as many as 43 exhibits were marked. The respondent/claimant was examined as P.W.1, one Dr.N.Saichandran was examined as P.W.2 and one Mr.Kasi was examined as P.W.3. On behalf of the appellant/Transport Corporation, one Mr.C.Madhappa, driver of the appellate Transport Corporation Bus was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R1 – copy of Rough Sketch was marked. 6. The respondent/claimant was examined as P.W.1, one Dr.N.Saichandran was examined as P.W.2 and one Mr.Kasi was examined as P.W.3. On behalf of the appellant/Transport Corporation, one Mr.C.Madhappa, driver of the appellate Transport Corporation Bus was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R1 – copy of Rough Sketch was marked. 6. On appreciation of the materials before it, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.57,90,000/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit and the break-up details of the award are as under: S.No. Description Amount awarded by Tribunal 1. Loss of Earning Capacity (Rs.7,220 x 12 x 18) Rs. 15,59,520.00 2. Loss of earning during the treatment period Rs.12,70,720.00 3. Transportation to Hospital Rs.1,20,000.00 4. Extra Nourishment Rs.1,00,000.00 5. Damage to Clothes Rs.1,000.00 6. Medical Expenses Rs.8,73,464.00 7. Future Medical Expenses Rs.10,00,000.00 8. Attender Charges Rs. 1,50,000.00 9. Purchase of Electric Wheel Chair Rs. 1,08,000.00 10. Loss of Child in the Womb Rs. 2,00,000.00 11. Loss of Amenities Rs. 1,00,000.00 12. Loss of Longevity of Life Rs. 1,00,000.00 13. Loss of Marital Status Rs. 1,00,000.00 14. Pain and Suffering Rs. 1,00,000.00 Total Rs.57,84,314.00 Rounded off to Rs.57,90,000.00 7. Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation would contend that unmindful of the multiplier adopted in Sarla Verma's case, derivation of multiplier as 18 instead of 17 by the Tribunal is against the settled principles of law, as the claimant was aged 30 years at the time of accident. He would further contend that the compensation awarded under the head 'pecuniary loss including physical disability' and 'future medical expenses' is exorbitant. Therefore, he would seek reduction of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ claimant would vehemently contend that though on the basis of exhibits marked before the Tribunal, such as Discharge summary (Ex.P4), CT Scan report (Ex.P5), Certificate issued by AIIMS Hospital (Ex.P7), the claimant's percentage of permanent disability was determined at 100%, only 25% is fixed towards permanent physical and functional disability and therefore, the appellant/Transport Corporation is not justified in preferring an appeal over the award of the Tribunal. Thus, he would submit that the award has to be either enhanced or confirmed in toto without any intervention. 9. Thus, he would submit that the award has to be either enhanced or confirmed in toto without any intervention. 9. We have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record. 10. A circumspection of the facts would show that on 21.07.2008, about 2.15 hours, the driver of the appellant/Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N-1948, on account of rash and negligent driving, caused an accident by hitting the right rear portion of a private bus bearing Registration No.KA-04-AA-9199, which was stationed at Ambur to Vellore MC Road near Valland Ramam Coot Road, Pallikonda, Vellore District due to puncture. Due to the said accident, the respondent/claimant, who was a passenger in the private bus sustained crush injuries. To the respondent/claimant's claim of Rs.1,00,00,000/-as compensation, the appellant/Transport Corporation had stated that the accident had occurred only due to the negligent driving of the driver of the private bus and that the driver of their Transport Corporation drove the bus slowly and carefully. The Tribunal, on examination of the oral and documentary evidence, fixed the liability of negligence on the driver of the appellant/Transport Corporation bus and awarded a sum of Rs.57,90,000/-as compensation to the respondent/claimant. 11. Though this appeal is filed by the Transport Corporation, nowhere in the grounds, they have a raised a question as to the liability of negligence fixed on them. They have only questioned the quantum of compensation awarded to the respondent/claimant. Therefore, we feel that the liability of negligence so fixed by the Tribunal does not require any interference. Now, the question to be determined is whether the quantum awarded by the Tribunal requires any modification. 12. It is seen that P.W.1, the claimant herself has deposed that she sustained multiple fractures and injuries in the accident and was immediately taken to CMC Hospital, Vellore for first aid and subsequently, shifted to MIOT Hospital. Further, she had also taken treatment at AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi and New Tech Medi World. In support of her submissions, Ex.P2 – copy of the Accident Register and Ex.P3 - Wound Certificate issued by MIOT Hospital were marked. Further, she had also taken treatment at AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi and New Tech Medi World. In support of her submissions, Ex.P2 – copy of the Accident Register and Ex.P3 - Wound Certificate issued by MIOT Hospital were marked. Ex.P4 - Discharge Summary reveals that she sustained left foot crush injury with lisfranc fracture dislocation, fracture dislocation D9-10 vertebra with traumatic paraplegia and was treated as inpatient from 21.07.2008 to 14.08.2008; that she underwent wound debridement and irrigation on 22.07.2008; that posterior stabilization of D7-D8 to D11-12 decompressionn ad interbody fusion with cage was done on 23.07.2008; that foot wound debridement was done on 28.07.2008; that wound debridement, open reduction and K wire fixation of tarso meta tarsal joint done with ankle spanning external fixation was done on 04.08.2008; that reverse sural artery flap cover and split skin grafting was done on 09.09.2008; and that CT Scan dorsal spine shows burst fracture dislocation of D9 vertebral body and posterior elements with a large retropulsed bone fragment causing canal compromise cord compression. Ex.P6 - another Discharge Summary would show that she was once again treated in MIOT Hospital from 15.09.2008 to 22.09.2008, thereby she underwent debridement, sequestrectomy, secondary suturing and split skin grafting of the left foot was done on 16.09.2008. Ex.P7, a certificate issued by the AIIMS states that surgical interventions were not improving the condition of the claimant and hence she may opt for stem cell treatment. Besides marking various exhibits in proof of sustenance of injuries, P.W.1 had further deposed that she was working as Research Engineer (E2) in Centre for Development of Telematics (C-Dot) Electronics City Phase-I, Hosur Road, Bangalore and earning Rs.33,826/- per month at the time of accident. 13. In this regard, Dr.N.Saichandran, who was examined as P.W.2, assessed the disability of the respondent/claimant at 100% and produced Ex.P41 – Disability Certificate in that regard. He had deposed that due to fracture of D10 & D11 bones, she has lost sensation below the hip with loss of incondence of motion and urine and she is using wheel chair. As she was pregnant at the time of accident, after 3 ½ months, medical termination of pregnancy was performed to her; due to skin grafting done to her left leg, left foot bend, its movement is restricted and left foot is disfigured and there will be no chance for the decrease in the disability of the claimant. As she was pregnant at the time of accident, after 3 ½ months, medical termination of pregnancy was performed to her; due to skin grafting done to her left leg, left foot bend, its movement is restricted and left foot is disfigured and there will be no chance for the decrease in the disability of the claimant. Considering the fact that she can only be made to sit and do work and she has lost senses and movements below the hip, the Tribunal found that the disability assessed by P.W.2 is just and reasonable. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2, it is clear that the claimant cannot move without the help of wheel chair and her movement below hip has become completely paralysed. 14. P.W.1 also deposed that she is in need of using underpad and adult diaper throughout her life and till date, she is regularly taking physiotherapy. She was on loss of pay from 03.10.2008 to 31.05.2012 for 1337 days and she had also produced Ex.P34, salary certificate for the month of July 2012, showing her gross salary as Rs.56,641/-, of which, Rs.28,280/- is her basic salary. Though it was argued by the appellant/ Transport Corporation before the Tribunal that the respondent/claimant is continuing in the same job as prior to the accident, her earning capacity is not completely lost, but it is to be noted here that the disability caused to her raises doubt, if she could continue her job in future and her performance as a research Engineer will be affected, which will certainly have a direct effect on her emoluments. 15. Considering the total disablement of the respondent/claimant including her 100% permanent physical disability, the Tribunal fixed her functional disability at 25% and hence, took 25% of her monthly basic income and arrived at a sum of Rs.7,200/- towards pecuniary loss. As the respondent/claimant was aged 30 years at the time of accident as is evident from the medical records, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 18' for the purpose of calculation. But, in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma, the proper multiplier to be adopted to the age of the claimant is 17'' and not 18'. 16. But, in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma, the proper multiplier to be adopted to the age of the claimant is 17'' and not 18'. 16. Pecuniary Loss: It is to be noted that the percentage of disability of the claimant so fixed by the Tribunal at 25% is not convincing in view of the fact that due to her disablement, she cannot functionally move even within the office premises, participate in any of the meetings or promotional aspects and the disability caused to her is a permanent one interfering with future prospective performance. 16a. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Suresh vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and another, reported in (2012) 12 SCC 274 , was pleased to hold as under: “21. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the view of the High Court that no compensation can be granted towards permanent disability once compensation is computed for the loss of earning capacity and loss of future earnings is unsustainable. As is perceivable, the High Court has computed the loss of earning power at Rs.4,68,000/- instead of Rs.5,00,000/- as determined by the tribunal and deleted sum of Rs.3,00,000/- that was awarded by the tribunal towards permanent disability. In our considered opinion, total deletion is absolutely unjustified and, in fact, runs counter to the principles laid down by this Court in Ramesh Chandra (supra) and B. Kothandapani. 23. While determining compensation payable to a victim of an accident the parameters which are to be kept in view have been succinctly stated in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others: - 9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.” 16b. Thus, keeping the above principles in mind, we hereby increase the percentage of disability from 25% to 40%, thereby the total pecuniary loss is arrived at Rs.23,56,608/- (Rs.11,552/- (40% of the total income) x 12 x 17). 17. Loss of Earning: For deciding compensation under the said head, the Tribunal has heavily relied on the Loss of Leave and Pay Certificate marked as Ex.P25, in which it was stated that the respondent/claimant was on loss of pay for 44 months and did not attend the work. It was observed by the Tribunal that though the loss of income has to be restricted only to 52 weeks, considering the fact that there was no improvement in the treatment and the recovery was also zero, as a special case, the Tribunal had taken the basic pay of the claimant at Rs.28,880/- and computed the loss of income for 44 months (i.e. during the treatment period) at Rs.12,70,720/-, which in our considered opinion does not call for any interference and the same is hereby confirmed. 18. Transportation charges: By accepting the exhibit marked as Ex.P20, transport bill for Rs.1,21,612/- and also taking into account the fact that the respondent/claimant had to incur expenses towards various ambulance services, trips and flight charges, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.1,20,000/- towards transportation charges. According to us, fixation of the said amount towards transportation expenses is a reasonable one and we have no reason either to increase or decrease the said amount. Therefore, we confirmthe amount awarded under the head “Transportation Charges”. 19. According to us, fixation of the said amount towards transportation expenses is a reasonable one and we have no reason either to increase or decrease the said amount. Therefore, we confirmthe amount awarded under the head “Transportation Charges”. 19. Extra Nourishment & Damages to Clothes: Owing to non- existence of separate provision for consideration of food expenses, bills for Rs.11,021/- was considered by the Tribunal towards Extra Nourishment. Considering the gravity of injuries and the amount spent by the claimant towards extra nourishment, the Tribunal, in toto, awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards extra nourishment and a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards damage to clothes in the accident. We find no infirmity with the compensation awarded under the said heads and accordingly, they are confirmed. 20. Purchase of Wheel Chair: On a perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 itself, it is clear that she has become a vegetable partially, as she has to depend on others even to do her daily chores. It was also observed by the Tribunal that she was brought to the Court in a Wheel Chair only and therefore, an electrical wheel chair is inevitable for the claimant so that she could move on her own. On accepting the bill for Rs.1,08,000/- marked as Ex.P30 towards purchase of modernized wheel chair, the very same amount incurred was granted by the Tribunal for the said purpose. Finding justification in it, we hereby approve the amount granted by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is confirmed. 21. Medical and Treatment Charges: Exempting certain bills produced such as room rent charges, courier charges, delivery challan charges and tax invoice, all other bills vide Ex.P16 (Rs.7,71,373/-), Ex.P18 (Rs.36,000/-) and Ex.P43 (Rs.66,091/-) totalling Rs.8,73,464/- were taken into consideration for awarding compensation towards 'medical expenses'. The Tribunal has rightly separated the bills, which do not come under the purview of consideration under medical expenses and therefore, in the circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the said amount awarded towards medical expenses is justifiable and no modification is called for. 22. Future Medical Expenses: A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- has been awarded under the head 'Future Medical Expenses' and the same is highly questioned by the appellant/Transport Corporation stating that the amount awarded is exorbitant. 22. Future Medical Expenses: A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- has been awarded under the head 'Future Medical Expenses' and the same is highly questioned by the appellant/Transport Corporation stating that the amount awarded is exorbitant. Though there is a possibility of incurring huge amount towards Medical expenses in future as also the opinion given by various Doctors would also give credence to the claim of the injured, still the amount awarded for the guesswork is on the higher side, as it is likely to go less also. Therefore, the amount awarded for future medical expenses is modified by reducing the same from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.2,30,000/- for arriving at the just compensation for “Future Medical Expenses”. 23. Attender Charges: It is pitiable that a woman with a senseless hip and immobile leg has to, no doubt, depend on others for her basic needs. It is quite impossible to have family members always beside her and she has to necessarily depend on a third person for her assistance on payment. There is also a need for having more than one attender at critical stages. Thus, considering the overall situation, the Tribunal, by calculating Rs.3,000/- per month, has awarded Rs.1,50,000/- towards Attender Charges. 24. Loss of Child in the Womb: While awarding compensation under this head, learned Tribunal took note of the fact that due to the accident, the claimant's expectation to become a mother is a stand still and the Doctors found that she was carrying a child in the womb at the time of accident and on account of her unfitness to bear the child, her pregnancy was aborted. Though no one can evaluate the depression of a mother and compensate her in terms of money, yet some consolation may be extended by awarding reasonable amount for the said loss. Therefore, there is nothing wrong on the part of the Tribunal in awarding a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards 'Loss of Child in the Womb' and the same is hereby confirmed. 25. Therefore, there is nothing wrong on the part of the Tribunal in awarding a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards 'Loss of Child in the Womb' and the same is hereby confirmed. 25. Loss of Amenities: Bearing in mind the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 , to the effect that the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident; that the object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner; that the court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable; that a person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury; and that this means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned, the Tribunal, in the present case, awarded Rs.1,00,000/- for the loss of amenities, which does not call for any interference by this Court and the same is confirmed. 26. Loss of Longevity of Life & Loss of Marital Status: The amount awarded under the head “Loss of Longevity”, in our opinion, is uncalled for, in view of certain award of amount under non-pecuniary damages in this case. Therefore, while deleting the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded under the head 'loss of longevity of life', the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded under the head 'Loss of Marital Status' is upheld. 27. Pain and Suffering: It cannot be disputed that because of the accident, the respondent/claimant, who is a Research Engineer by profession, has become paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by her. 27. Pain and Suffering: It cannot be disputed that because of the accident, the respondent/claimant, who is a Research Engineer by profession, has become paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by her. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the claimant and for having become a lifelong handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the claimant. That is why it has been said by courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, 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. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame. Keeping the same in mind, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded under this head is confirmed. 28. Accordingly, with the above modifications to the extent indicated above, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. The new break-up details of the award are as follows: S.No. Description Amount awarded by Tribunal Amount now modified by this Court 1. Loss of Earning Capacity (Rs.11,552/-(40% basic income) x 12 x 17 Rs.15,59,520.00 Rs.23,56,608.00 (increased) 2. Loss of earning during the treatment period Rs.12,70,720.00 Rs.12,70,720.00 (No Change) 3. Transport to Hospital Rs. 1,20,000.00 Rs. 1,20,000.00 (No Change) 4. Extra Nourishment Rs. 1,00,000.00 Rs.1,00,000.00 (No Change) 5. Damage to Clothes Rs. 1,000.00 Rs.1,000.00 (No Change) 6. Medical Expenses Rs. 8,73,464.00 Rs. 8,73,464.00 (No Change) 7. Future Medical Expenses Rs.10,00,000.00 Rs. 2,30,000.00 (decreased) 8. Attender Charges Rs. 1,50,000.00 Rs. 1,50,000.00 (No Change) 9. Purchase of Electric Wheel Chair Rs. 1,08,000.00 Rs. 1,08,000.00 (No Change) 10. Loss of Child in the Womb Rs. 2,00,000.00 Rs. 2,00,000.00 (No Change) 11. Loss of Amenities Rs. 1,00,000.00 Rs. 1,00,000.00 (No Change) 12. Loss of Longevity of Life Rs. 1,00,000.00 Deleted 13. Loss of Marital Status Rs. 1,00,000.00 Rs. 1,00,000.00 (No Change) 14. Pain and Sufferings Rs. 1,00,000.00 Rs. 1,00,000.00 (No change) Total Rs.57,84,314.00 Rs.57,09,792.00 Rounded off to Rs.57,10,000.00 29. It is represented by the learned counsel for the parties that pursuant to the conditional interim order, 50% of the award amount has already been deposited by the appellant/Transport Corporation. Loss of Marital Status Rs. 1,00,000.00 Rs. 1,00,000.00 (No Change) 14. Pain and Sufferings Rs. 1,00,000.00 Rs. 1,00,000.00 (No change) Total Rs.57,84,314.00 Rs.57,09,792.00 Rounded off to Rs.57,10,000.00 29. It is represented by the learned counsel for the parties that pursuant to the conditional interim order, 50% of the award amount has already been deposited by the appellant/Transport Corporation. In view of the same, we hereby direct the appellant/Transport Corporation to deposit the remaining amount, as modified above, to the credit of the concerned Tribunal within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this judgment. It is needless to mention that on such deposit, the respondent/claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount of compensation along with accrued interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.