JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 20th January 2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( IV Small Causes Court Judge ) Chennai in M.C.O.P 4720 of 2007. The Cross objection has been filed by the claimant seeking an enhancement. The enhancement sought now, was already claimed before the Tribunal at the time of Arguments. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per their rank in the original petition. 3. Both the parties are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded. In short, the 2nd respondent is seeking a reduction and the claimant is seeking an enhancement. The negligence and validity of insurance policy are not in dispute. 4. The claimant was on his way to Chennai in the scorpio car of the 1st respondent when the accident occurred on 24.06.2007 at about 14.30 Hrs. The claimant, who was just 21 at that time, suffered grievous injuries to his spinal cord paralyzing his movement perpetually. After considering the documentary as well as oral evidence, the Tribunal fixed the salary of the claimant at Rs.10,000/- per month and awarded a compensation of Rs.25,50,000/- with costs and 7.5% interest per annum. Aggrieved partly, the present appeal has been filed by the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company to the extent of Rs.10,50,000/=. At the time of Admission, the claimant has filed the cross objection, seeking enhancement to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. 5. Heard both sides. The records were called for from the Tribunal and examined. 6. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has questioned the fixation of salary at Rs.10,000/-. Per contra the counsel for the claimant has contended that considering the future prospects, the salary ought to have been fixed at Rs.10,500/- per month and relied upon the Judgments reported in THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, T.N.STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. v. AJAY MARAR (2010 (2) TNMAC 167 (DB) and ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. CHANDRA (2013 (2) TNMAC 105 (DB). 7. Exhibit P25, which is the salary certificate along with series of Vouchers, reflects payment of salary to the claimant from the date of employment. The customer service reports, reflecting that the claimant was, in fact, employed as a Service Engineer, were marked as Exhibit P26 Series. PW4, the Managing Director has deposed that had the claimant not met with the accident, his salary would have been Rs.11,000/-. The customer service reports, reflecting that the claimant was, in fact, employed as a Service Engineer, were marked as Exhibit P26 Series. PW4, the Managing Director has deposed that had the claimant not met with the accident, his salary would have been Rs.11,000/-. However, in the Judgment of the Apex Court in Sarala Verma’s Case reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC) , the Apex Court has held that the claimant would be entitled to 50% addition on salary towards future prospects only in cases where the victim was in a permanent job. However, the Apex Court, in the judgment reported in SANTOSH DEVI'S case in ( (2012) 6 SCC 421 ) has varied slightly from the findings in Sarala Varma’s case with regard to future prospects and held as follows:- "14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma’s case that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death and a departure from this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. In our view, it will be naïve to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self-employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lac. Although, the wages/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. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching cloths. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma’s judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he / she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation. 15. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he / she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation. 15. It is also not possible to approve the view taken by the Tribunal which has been reiterated by the High Court albeit without assigning reasons that the deceased would have spent 1/3rd of his total earning, i.e., Rs.500/-, towards personal expenses. It seems that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge of the High Court were totally oblivious of the hard realities of the life. It will be impossible for a person whose monthly income is Rs.1,500/- to spend 1/3rd on himself leaving 2/3rd for the family consisting of five persons. Ordinarily, such a person would, at best, spend 1/10th of his income on himself or use that amount as personal expenses and leave the rest for his family. 16. The Tribunal’s observation that the two sons of the appellant cannot be treated dependant on their father because they were not minor is neither here nor there. In the cross-examination of the appellant, no question was put to her about the source of sustenance of her two sons. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to assume that the sons who had become major can no longer be regarded dependant on the deceased. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment as also the award of the Tribunal are set aside and it is declared that the claimants shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.2,94,840 [Rs.1,500 + 30% of Rs.1,500 = Rs.1,950 less 1/10th towards personal expenses = Rs.1,755 x 12 x 14 =Rs.2,94,840]. The claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.5,000/- for transportation of the body, Rs.10,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- in lieu of loss of consortium. Thus, the total amount payable to the claimants will be Rs.3,19,840/-. The enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs.1,42,340/- (Rs.3,19,840 - Rs.1,77,500) shall carry interest of 7 per cent from the date of application till realisation. 18. Thus, the total amount payable to the claimants will be Rs.3,19,840/-. The enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs.1,42,340/- (Rs.3,19,840 - Rs.1,77,500) shall carry interest of 7 per cent from the date of application till realisation. 18. Respondent No.1 – Insurance Company is directed to pay to the appellant the total amount of compensation within a period of three months by getting prepared a demand draft in her name which shall be delivered to her at the address given in the claim petition filed before the Tribunal. While doing so, respondent No.1 shall be free to deduct the amount already paid to the appellant." 8. Therefore, even the dependents of a person who is self-employed or is paid fixed wages are also entitled to future prospects. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court has been followed by this Court in the judgments reported in 2010 (2) TNMAC 167 (DB) and 2013 (2) TN MAC 105 (DB). 9. In the present case, from the very fact that the claimant, during his employment, had periodically received increments and from the evidence of PW4, it can be inferred that the claimant was a permanent employee. Hence applying the ratio in the judgments in Sarala Verma’s case and Santosh Devi’s case, the claimant is entitled to 50% addition of salary towards future prospects. Therefore, considering that the last drawn salary of the claimant was Rs.7,000/-, Rs.3,500/- is added towards future prospects and the salary of the petitioner is fixed at Rs.10,500/-. Hence the Compensation towards loss in earning capacity is enhanced accordingly. 10. The next contention raised by the counsel for the 2nd respondent is that the Tribunal ought to have applied the interest theory to off-set the loss in earnings. The said contention cannot be accepted. The award of compensation towards loss in earnings by considering the future prospects is to somewhat balance the situation by attempting to put the claimant in a position if the accident had not occurred. The compensation awarded to a claimant must be “just“ in the facts and circumstances of the case. A Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment reported in 2010 (2) TNMAC 167 has held as follows:- “17. The physical frame of the claimant has been shattered and money cannot compensate what has been shattered. No amount of compensation can restore the lost limb of the claimant. In PHILLIPS VS. A Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment reported in 2010 (2) TNMAC 167 has held as follows:- “17. The physical frame of the claimant has been shattered and money cannot compensate what has been shattered. No amount of compensation can restore the lost limb of the claimant. In PHILLIPS VS. WESTERN RAILWAY CO., 1874 (4) QBD 406), Field, J., while emphasising that damages must be full and adequate, it was 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." 18. In CONCORD OF INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. vs. NIRMALA DEVI (1980 ACJ 55 (SC)), 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. ..." 19. While awarding the compensation, the Courts/Tribunals should take into consideration the relevant factors so as to enable the Claimant to put back into original position. The compensation to be awarded is to be just and reasonable and not bonanza. But at the same time, the compensation awarded should not be a mere pittance amount. As discussed earlier, the physical frame of the Claimant has been shattered and now he has been reduced to a vegetable existence.” 11. This case is no different. The claimant has suffered 100% permanent disability reducing him to a vegetative state. He has to depend on others for everything. The expenses or the situations that the claimant may have to meet in the life cannot be foreseen. Any amount of compensation cannot set at naught the injury he has suffered. When he cannot take care of himself, there is no room even for a thought that he will get some other income. Hence the said contention of the 2nd respondent is rejected. 12. Any amount of compensation cannot set at naught the injury he has suffered. When he cannot take care of himself, there is no room even for a thought that he will get some other income. Hence the said contention of the 2nd respondent is rejected. 12. The next contention of the counsel for the 2nd respondent is that the Tribunal ought to have not awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering claiming the same to be repetitive or in other words both the heads are synonyms of each other. 13. Per contra, the counsel for the claimant has contented that mental agony is different from pain and sufferings and further contented that the Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony, loss of happiness and loss of amenities of life, when claims under the above heads were made separately. 14. Mental agony is the internal pain, a person undergoes just by the thought that he is disabled and is not in a position to do something. It is different from the physical pain that a person suffers due to injury. In the instant case, the claimant is suffering from paraplegia. He cannot move independently. His life is struck in a wheel chair. He cannot attend any social functions. The Uro and motion bags are permanently fixed. Therefore, he is actually excommunicated from the society. He has to spend his entire life in the four corners of his house. At times, it would also be difficult to find help from others. Hence, the claimant is separately entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,00,000/-towards pain and sufferings. 15. In view of the fact that this court has held that the claimant is separately entitled to compensation for Mental Agony, the claim towards loss of amenities in life and loss of happiness is considered separately. The claimant has claimed Rs.50,000/- towards amenities and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of happiness. The Tribunal has not separately awarded any compensation under these heads. The learned counsel for the claimant has contended that even though the claimant has only claimed Rs.15,000/-, he is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- as awarded by this Court in the Judgment Reported in TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SALEM v. R.MURALIDHARAN AND OTHERS (2009 (1) TNMAC 383 (DB)). As stated above, the claimant has suffered 100% disability. REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SALEM v. R.MURALIDHARAN AND OTHERS (2009 (1) TNMAC 383 (DB)). As stated above, the claimant has suffered 100% disability. The disability is permanent and he is reduced to a vegetative state. Therefore, because of the accident, indirectly, there is a social excommunication. The claimant has been deprived of the enjoyment of his youth. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of happiness and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities. 16. As against the claim of Rs.46,500/- towards extra-nourishment, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/-. The counsel for the claimant, relying upon the judgment of this Court reported in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. S.SARAVANAN & ANOTHER (2009 (2) TNMAC 103 (DB)), contended that in a claim by a similarly injured person, the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards extra-nourishment. 17. The provisions of Motor Vehicles Act relating to award of compensation is a social welfare legislation. The award of compensation has to be just. In the judgment reported in SHAIKH FAROOQ MOHAMMAD GAOUSE v. THE TRANSPORT MANAGER, THANE (2013 (2) TNMAC 226 (DB), the Bombay High Court has, in para 26, held as follows: “Looking to the health condition of the Appellant, naturally he is required to take special diet. A sum of Rs.1,500/- per month can be granted to him for a special diet. The said amount will have to be also capitalized by applying multiplier of 16. Hence, the said amount will be Rs.2,88,000/- (Rs.1,500x12x16). Substantial part of the Compensation amount granted by this Court is payable in future. Therefore, interest on that amount cannot be granted from the date of filing of the Claim Petition." 18. It is a case where the claimant had suffered similar injuries and was similarly disabled. The multiplier adopted in that case was 16. In the present case, the multiplier adopted is 17. However considering the cost of living and the food habits prevalent in the state, extra-nourishment can be calculated at Rs.750×12×17= Rs.1,53,000/-. However, the claimant has only claimed Rs.1,00,000/- towards extra-nourishment. Therefore, considering that the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.25,000/- towards extra-nourishment, a further sum of Rs.75,000/- is awarded towards extra nourishment without interest. 19. However considering the cost of living and the food habits prevalent in the state, extra-nourishment can be calculated at Rs.750×12×17= Rs.1,53,000/-. However, the claimant has only claimed Rs.1,00,000/- towards extra-nourishment. Therefore, considering that the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.25,000/- towards extra-nourishment, a further sum of Rs.75,000/- is awarded towards extra nourishment without interest. 19. As far as the award towards medical expenses and future medical expenses, a sum of Rs.24,000/- has been awarded towards medical expenses and Rs.1,00,000 towards future medical expenses as against the claim of Rs.3,75,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.24,000/- based on evidence produced before it towards the expenses incurred. Therefore, this court finds no valid reasons to interfere with the award under the head medical expenses. However, with regard to future medical expenses, the Tribunal has rejected Ex.P9, holding that the doctor was not examined and awarded Rs.1,00,000/- considering the then condition of the claimant. Future medical expenses would not only include the expenses indicated in Ex.P9. It would include many other expenses like consultation charges, medicines, replacement of Urinary and Stool Bags throughout his life, Wheel Chair, etc. Hence the compensation towards future medical expenses is allowed to the extent of Rs.2,50,000/=. This enhancement of Rs.2,50,000/- will not carry interest. 20. As far as the loss of earning during treatment, the appellant has claimed Rs.1,08,000/- in the claim petition for the period from 24.06.2007 to 23.06.2008. In the cross-objections, the counsel has contended that he has taken treatment till 28.04.2009. Exhibits P10 and P11 clearly prove that he was given continuous treatment till 28.04.2009. During the period of treatment, he has lost his actual earnings. Therefore, the claimant, having clearly established that he was under continuous intensive treatment, is entitled for compensation towards loss in earnings during treatment. His last drawn salary has been fixed at Rs.7000/- per month and therefore the claimant is entitled to Rs.7000 × 22 months = Rs.1,54,000/-. 21. The next point for consideration is the compensation towards future attender charges. The claimant has claimed Rs.2,50,000/- towards future attender charges. Considering the nature of injury and the fact that the claimant is suffering from 100% disability, he definitely needs an attender throughout his life. PW2, during his evidence, has deposed that he has been the attender since the accident and was receiving Rs.2,000/- every month. The claimant has claimed Rs.2,50,000/- towards future attender charges. Considering the nature of injury and the fact that the claimant is suffering from 100% disability, he definitely needs an attender throughout his life. PW2, during his evidence, has deposed that he has been the attender since the accident and was receiving Rs.2,000/- every month. The Tribunal has not given any reasons for awarding Rs.35,000/- in one lump sum when it could have calculated the actual. Therefore the award towards compensation to Rs.2,000×12×17= Rs.4,08,000/-. In view of the fact that this sum is towards future charges, this will not carry any interest. 22. In so far the claim towards Transportation charges is concerned, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was claimed. During the course of proceedings before the Tribunal, the claimant seems to have sought for Rs.1,00,000/- towards transportation charges including future transportation charges which is evident from the Written Arguments filed before the Tribunal. The counsel for the claimant, placing reliance upon the judgment reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 103 (DB) contended that the Division Bench of this Court, after considering that the claimant therein, as in the present, case was reduced to vegetative state, confirmed the award of Rs.1,00,000/- towards transportation charges. This court, though cannot decide on the imponderables, however, it is clear that the claimant would have to visit the hospital or a doctor periodically throughout his life. The nature of injury is also such that it requires continuous medical treatments. With the booming increase in the cost of fuel and the resultant effect on the hire charges of transport vehicle, this court fees that the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards transportation charges. Hence the compensation is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. 23. The award of the Tribunal is modified and enhanced as follows:- Heads Claim(In rupees) Award by Tribunal(In rupees) Award by High Court(In rupees) Enhancement(In rupees) Loss of Earning power 16,00,000 20,40,000 21,42,000 1,02,000 Loss of earning during treatment 1,08,000 1,54,000 1,54,000 Future Attender charges 2,50,000 35000 4,08,000 3,73,000(without interest) Transportation charges 25000 25000 1,00,000 75,000(without interest) Future Medical expenses 3,00,000 1,00,000 2,50,000 1,50,000(without interest) Extra nourishment 46500 25000 1,00,000 75,000(without interest) Loss of happiness 15000 15000 15000 Loss of amenities 50000 50000 50000 Mental agony 1,00,000 1,00,000 1,00,000 NIL Pain and sufferings 2,00,000 1,00,000 1,00,000 NIL Loss of Marital life 1,70,000 1,00,000 1,00,000 NIL Medical Expenses 75000 24000 24000 NIL Total 9,94,000 24. As this court has enhanced the compensation towards extra nourishment, future Attender charges, future medical expenses and future transportation charges, the same will not carry any interest. However, interest as awarded by the Tribunal shall be paid on other heads. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with interest and costs as awarded by the Tribunal deducting the amount already deposited by them within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same by filing appropriate application. 25. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal as well as the connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed and the cross-objection is partly allowed with costs.