JUDGMENT : S. Vimala, J. Public interest is the hallmark in the functioning of the statutory authorities. They are expected to discharge the statutory functions strictly in accordance with the spirit, objective and purpose behind the provisions of the enactment. When the violations are alleged against them or when they file/face cases before the Court, they are expected to behave as a responsible litigant. They can fight for establishment of their rights or for redressal of their grievances, if they are genuine. But they need to fight for the sole purpose of harnessing the smooth flow of justice benefiting the other side. In other words, they are not expected to take vexatious, technical, frivolous and unjust contentions to defeat the legitimate claims of the citizens or to sooth their inflated egos. It is also not necessary that all cases invariably should be fought up to the Supreme Court when there are no merits. 1.1. When a claim for amputation has suffered amputation on account of mis-application/non-application of principles involved in the quantification of compensation leading to the meager award of Rs. 5,58,073/- for a minor girl, (aged 13 years) who suffered amputation of leg up to thigh level, whether the statutory functionary is expected to challenge the award irrespective of/ignoring the litigation policy of the Government is the moot question to be answered. 1.2. However, the irony is that, this decision of the appellant to challenge the quantum has paved the way for the claimant to get the enhancement in compensation. The fact remains that the claimant has not chosen to file any independent appeal or at least the counter claim, when the Insurance Company filed the Appeal. But, this Court has considered the mute cry of the claimant agitating and enhanced the quantum deservedly in favour of the claimant/R-1, without which the ends of justice would hardly be met. 2. The claimant, Minor Jasmine, aged 13 years (during the year 2010), a student studying 8th standard, met with an accident on 01.03.2010 and on account of the injury sustained, she suffered amputation upto thigh and that crippled her life for ever. She claimed Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The details of claim made and the sum awarded by the Tribunal are furnished hereunder:- 4. She claimed Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The details of claim made and the sum awarded by the Tribunal are furnished hereunder:- 4. From the details of award passed, it is clear that while laying the bricks the Tribunal has missed laying the corner stone, i.e., while awarding compensation under various heads the Tribunal did not award compensation for purchase of artificial limb in a case of amputation. 5. The main contention of the Insurance Company is that the Tribunal has granted double compensation in respect of permanent disability by awarding compensation for permanent disability itself and granting compensation in respect of future loss of earning capacity. 5.1. Yet another contention of the Insurance Company is that having granted a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- towards permanent disability of 80%, grant of Rs. 2,25,000/- for future loss of earning capacity by applying the multiplier theory is untenable and unacceptable. 6. At the outset, let us look into the meaning of compensation and the provisions mandating the Tribunal to award "just compensation". 6.1. The word "compensation" is derived from the latin word "compensare" meaning "weigh together" or "balance". 6.2. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, makes it clear that the duty of the Tribunal is to award compensation which must be "just". If the compensation is to be 'just', then it must adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident, so far as it is possible. 6.3. Recognizing the duty to award "just compensation" the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others, AIR 2003 SC 674 gave a verdict that it is permissible for the Claims Tribunal to grant more compensation than what is claimed. 6.4. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the Court considered some of the precedents and held: The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. 7. Had the Tribunal considered the claim under each head and the special need of the child on account of amputation, the Tribunal would be able to arrive at "just compensation". 7.1. The Tribunal has omitted to take note of the claim made towards purchase of artificial limb. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has rendered verdict explaining the necessity of awarding claim under the head of disablement and the consequences of disablement separately. Moreover, itemization of compensation to be awarded has also been emphasized in order to ensure no part of the compensation remains un-awarded while awarding "just compensation". 8.1. It is imperative to do so as per the guidelines issued in the decision reported in the case of Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ahmed Thambi and Others, (2006) 4 MLJ 362 , which is quoted, by this Court, in the case of The Managing Director vs T.Nagaraj (CMA. No. 289 of 2005). The relevant observations read thus. 18. While penning down the judgment His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.P. Shah in Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ahmed Thambi and Others, (2006) 4 MLJ 362 has held that; others Motor Accident Claims Tribunal should itemize the award under each of head namely Pecuniary Losses and Non-pecuniary Losses. 18. While penning down the judgment His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.P. Shah in Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ahmed Thambi and Others, (2006) 4 MLJ 362 has held that; others Motor Accident Claims Tribunal should itemize the award under each of head namely Pecuniary Losses and Non-pecuniary Losses. Under the head of Non-Pecuniary Losses Tribunal shall consider - (a) pain and suffering (b) loss of amenity (c) loss of expectation of life, hardship, mental stress, etc., and (d) loss of prospect of marriage. Under the head of Pecuniary Losses, 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 date of accident till date of trial. His Lordship has also observed that, when loss of earning capacity is compensated the non-pecuniary losses under (a) to (d), permanent disability need not be separately itemized. 9. The challenge made to the total award of a sum of Rs. 5,58,073/-, in respect of the amputation suffered by the girl, aged 13, is justified or not, is the issue to be decided in this appeal. 10. In order to appreciate the contentions raised, it would be necessary to look into the evidence available on record. 10.1. As per the evidence of the father, surgery was performed upon the injured twice, while doing amputation; the first surgery was by external fixation of steel plates, due to development of gangrene at the crush injury part. Amputation up to knee level was performed on 03.03.2010. 10.2. The tissues, above knee, went into decay as there was no blood supply and therefore, a second surgery has been performed on 12.03.2010 making amputation up to thigh level. 10.3. For this kind of suffering, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and sufferings. 10.4. Whether this is justified? 10.5. The injured had been in-patient from 01.03.2010 to 17.05.2010. 10.6. According to the Doctor, who treated her, the percentage of disability is 80%. According to the Doctor, usage of artificial limb is indispensable and due to the growth, the artificial limb has to be changed subject to the rate of growth. 10.7. Despite the evidence of the Doctor, no amount has been awarded towards cost of purchase of prosthesis. 10.8. According to the Doctor, who treated her, the percentage of disability is 80%. According to the Doctor, usage of artificial limb is indispensable and due to the growth, the artificial limb has to be changed subject to the rate of growth. 10.7. Despite the evidence of the Doctor, no amount has been awarded towards cost of purchase of prosthesis. 10.8. The impact of amputation has to be understood in the light of the complications created, because of amputation, especially in the case of young children. It would be delightful to see the young one grow. But, it is oppose when the young one grow, who has suffered amputation. As the amputated part grows, the prosthesis has to be changed and the application of new prosthesis may need some surgical procedure to make it fit. 10.9. The sufferings on account of amputation has to be taken into account to consider the quantum of compensation for loss of enjoyment of amenities. The question is whether at any point of time, the injured will be in a position to enjoy her life or she would be suffering from mental health problems on account of pains specific to amputation. 10.10. A cross-sectional study of post-amputation pain in upper and lower limb amputees, done by Davidson JH, Khor KE, Jones LE revealed that the amputee groups have a reduced health status in almost all domains, such as bodily pain, social function and mental health, compared to the age-matched population norm. 10.11. Therefore, it is all the more necessary that grant of compensation towards purchase of artificial limb should have been granted by the Tribunal. 11. While awarding compensation for loss of earning capacity, the Tribunal has treated the injured as a non-earning member and thus has taken the notional income of Rs. 1,250/- per month. Adopting multiplier of 15' based upon the reported decision in 2010 (1) TN MAC 195 (M. Gunasundari V. Brills Transport and Others), the total amount of loss of earning capacity has been quantified at Rs. 2,25,000/- (Rs. 1,250/- x 12 x 15 = Rs. 2,25,000/-). 11.1. Taking the anticipated monthly future income at Rs. 4,000/-, which is normally taken when the injured is aged below 15 and adopting the multiplier of 15, the loss of earning capacity would be Rs. 7,20,000/- (Rs. 4,000/- x 12 x 15 = Rs. 7,20,000/-). 12. 2,25,000/- (Rs. 1,250/- x 12 x 15 = Rs. 2,25,000/-). 11.1. Taking the anticipated monthly future income at Rs. 4,000/-, which is normally taken when the injured is aged below 15 and adopting the multiplier of 15, the loss of earning capacity would be Rs. 7,20,000/- (Rs. 4,000/- x 12 x 15 = Rs. 7,20,000/-). 12. Considering the age of the injured, nature of surgery performed, period of treatment and amputation suffered, the impact of amputation upon the future of the young girl, the impact of physical disability upon the functional disability, the compensation awarded requires to be enhanced, i.e., the compensation not awarded under the heads of purchase of artificial limb and loss of enjoyment of amenities have to be awarded and the compensation awarded under other heads have to be re-worked/enhanced. Pain and sufferings: Pain and sufferings Rs. 1,50,000.00 Permanent Disability Rs. 1,60,000.00 Transport expenses Rs. 10,000.00 Extra Nourishment Rs. 10,000.00 Loss of Enjoyment of Amenities Rs. 50,000.00 Loss of income Rs. 7,20,000.00 Loss of marital prospects Rs. 1,50,000.00 Medical expenses Rs. 30,000.00 Attendant Charges Rs. 20,000.00 Artificial Leg Rs. 1,50,000.00 Total Rs. 14,50,000.00 13. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with costs throughout. The judgment and decree, dated 20.01.2011 of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Thoothukudi, made in M.C.O.P. No. 203 of 2010 is modified and the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 5,58,073/- to Rs. 14,50,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only). 13.1. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation at the same rate of interest and costs, as ordered by the Tribunal to the claimant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The claimant shall pay the additional Court fee before the Tribunal. 13.2. The guardian for the minor claimant is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only), from out of Rs. 14,50,000/- with accrued interest and costs, which would be by way of reimbursement of medical expenses incurred and for purchase of artificial limb. The remaining amount shall be deposited in Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Premises, Madurai, till the claimant attains majority. Till such time, interest accrued shall be sent to the guardian, once in three months directly, under intimation to the Tribunal. The remaining amount shall be deposited in Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Premises, Madurai, till the claimant attains majority. Till such time, interest accrued shall be sent to the guardian, once in three months directly, under intimation to the Tribunal. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No. 3 of 2014 is closed.