JUDGMENT : Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. Background: 1. Appellant Rajendran was the claimant in O.A.No.34 of 2002 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. He claimed compensation because he was grievously injured in a railway accident. The accident has, in fact, led not only to his physical impairment but also to his loosing employment. Though the Tribunal awarded compensation through a judgment dated 1.4.2005, Rajendran felt it inadequate. So he has filed this appeal before us. The Dispute: 2. The facts in brief are that Rajendran, a driver in a Cooperative bank was all set to join his new employer, the Central Excise Department, on 24.06.2001—with better salary and better career prospects. But before that, as fate would have it, he undertook a journey: On 22.6.2001, he boarded Mangalore-Chennai Mail at Vadakara to go to Chennai. On route, the train met with an accident. Rajendran, among many other passengers, suffered severe injuries: a fracture to the shaft of humerus, fracture to frontal bone on the left, and sprain in the right ankle. After many days’ hospitalization, Rajendran remained an invalid with career threatening disability. 3. On the blow his career received, Rajendran averred that he lost his job in the cooperative bank; he also lost his future employment as driver in the Central Excise Department, which he would have joined on 24th June 2001 but for the accident. 4. Under these circumstances, Rajendran filed a claim petition contending that he suffered disability above 40%, that given the nature of disability, especially to his left arm, he lost his employment in the present, and that he lost his future employment prospects, too, because his injury rendered him unsuitable to be a driver. This is, of course, besides the pecuniary loss he suffered due to the accident. 5. So Rajendran claimed Rs. 3 lakh as compensation. Eventually, the Tribunal on merits has found that Rajendran sustained two fractures, had been hospitalized for 37 days, and suffered a permanent disability of 25%, disabling himself from resuming his driving activities for one year. Under these circumstances, it granted Rs. 2 lakh as compensation with interest at 6% a year from the date of the case till payment of the award amount. Submissions: Appellant’s: 6. Assailing the award, Sri M. P. Krishnan Nair, Rajendran’s counsel, has contended that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the full compensation of Rs. Under these circumstances, it granted Rs. 2 lakh as compensation with interest at 6% a year from the date of the case till payment of the award amount. Submissions: Appellant’s: 6. Assailing the award, Sri M. P. Krishnan Nair, Rajendran’s counsel, has contended that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the full compensation of Rs. 4 lakh with interest at 4% a year from the date of the accident till the date of payment. According to him, besides awarding the maximum amount under the Railways Act, 1989, the Tribunal ought to have left Rajendran’s right open to claim further liquidated amounts under the common law. Sri Nair also contended that the Tribunal ought to have given interest from the date of the accident, but not from the date of the case—and @ 24% a year, at that. 7. Sri Nair has further contended that the Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that Rajendran’s permanent disability is only 25%; it must be reckoned as 100%, for Rajendran was a driver. The Railways’: 8. On the other hand, Smt. Lizamma Augustine, the learned Standing Counsel for the Indian Railways, has contended that from the verification of the list of passengers who sustained injuries in the train accident, it emerges that Rajendran sustained grievous injury. She has also submitted that Rajendran was initially paid Rs. 25,000 ex-gratia. 9. To elaborate, Smt.Augustine has submitted that Rajendran was treated as an in-patient at Medical College Hospital, Calicut, and was discharged on 27.6.2001. She has also submitted that Rajendran was paid the entire medical expenditure he incurred while he was treated in Medical College Hospital, Calicut—Rs. 1307/-. According to her, Rajendran has exaggerated his disability and the claim, too. Discussion: 10. To begin with, the Railways has admitted the accident. And the disability, too. The bone of contention pertains to percentage of the disability and the method of computing and quantifying the damages. Statutory Scheme: The Act: 11. Chapter XII of the Railways Act, 1989, (“the Act”)— Sections 113 to 122—deals with accidents. But the chapter prescribes an internal mechanism, with which a victim of the accident has nothing to do in terms of reparation. Chapter XIII deals with the liability of railway administration for the death or injury to passengers due to accidents. Chapter XII of the Railways Act, 1989, (“the Act”)— Sections 113 to 122—deals with accidents. But the chapter prescribes an internal mechanism, with which a victim of the accident has nothing to do in terms of reparation. Chapter XIII deals with the liability of railway administration for the death or injury to passengers due to accidents. Section 124 of the Act casts an obligation on the railways: Beginning with a non-obstante clause, the provision mandates that the railways is liable to pay compensation “to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only” for loss occasioned by a passenger’s death because of such accident, and ‘for personal injury and loss’, etc. On the other hand, Section 124-A deals with ‘untoward incidents’ in similar terms. A person injured can apply under 125 of the Act to the Railway Claims Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). 12. While Section 126 deals with the interim relief, Section 127 mandates that, subject to the rules governing the issue, the Tribunal will determine the rates of compensation payable to the injured person. For our discussion, the provision of prominence is Section 128, which reads: 128. Saving as to certain rights.--(l) The right of any person to claim compensation under section 124 [or section 124A] shall not affect the right of any such person to recover compensation payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, [8 of 1923] or any other law for the time being in force; but no person shall be entitled to claim compensation more than once in respect of the same accident. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the right of any person to claim compensation payable under any contract or scheme providing for payment of compensation for death or personal injury or for damage to property or any sum payable under any policy of insurance. 13. In plain terms, the provision provides for the remedies in the alternative. A person can claim compensation either under the Railways Act or under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923, or any other law for the time being in force. But no person can claim compensation more than once, or before more than one forum, about the same accident. The provision is analogous to Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act (1 167. A person can claim compensation either under the Railways Act or under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923, or any other law for the time being in force. But no person can claim compensation more than once, or before more than one forum, about the same accident. The provision is analogous to Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act (1 167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases.—Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both). The Rules: 14. The Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, (“the Rules”) have been framed under Section 129 of the Railways Act, read with Section 22 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. As per Rule 3, the compensation payable regarding death or injuries will be as specified in the Schedule. Part II and Part III of the Schedule prescribe the compensation according to the injury sustained. Sub-Rule (2), however, specifies that if those. parts have not covered a particular injury, the maximum compensation must be four lakh rupees, (As an aside, we may mention that the rules were amended after 19 years: “The Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 2016”. As per the revised Compensation Rules effective from 1st January 2017, compensation in case of death has been doubled from Rs. 4 lakh to Rs. 8 lakh.)if the injury is such as to deprive a person “of all capacity to do any work”. The figure ‘four lakh’, it pays to note, was fixed in 1997. If the same accident causes more than one injury, compensation shall be paid for each such injury. But the total compensation for all such injuries shall not exceed Rs. 80,000/-. Indeed, emphatic is the statutory mandate in Rule 4 that despite Rule 3, the total compensation shall never exceed four lakh rupees to any one person. The Tribunal’s Findings: 15. The Tribunal has considered the Accident Register-cum- Wound Certificate (Ext.A2) issued from the Medical College Hospital, Calicut. It has also considered the Temporary-Disability Certificate (Ext.A3) issued by the Department of Orthopaedics, Medical College, Calicut. The Tribunal’s Findings: 15. The Tribunal has considered the Accident Register-cum- Wound Certificate (Ext.A2) issued from the Medical College Hospital, Calicut. It has also considered the Temporary-Disability Certificate (Ext.A3) issued by the Department of Orthopaedics, Medical College, Calicut. It has, further, considered Rajendran’s evidence in cross: Rajendran has lost free mobility of his right hand; he cannot freely rotate it. The Tribunal, on physical examination, noted Rajendran’s inability to raise his hands fully as a normal person does. His both legs, too, were found swollen. 16. The Tribunal has, rightly, noted that Rajendran has lost his job as a motor-vehicle driver in the Co-operative Bank at the prime of his life. Eventually, considering Rajendran’s partial immobility and two fractures, it assessed his permanent disability at 25%. Perhaps guided by the medical opinion, the Tribunal has concluded that Rajendran could not resume his driving activities at least for one year. Besides, it acknowledges that Rajendran has lost an opportunity to join his new employer—better emoluments and better career prospects. So the Tribunal quantified the compensation at Rs. 2,00,000/-. Later Developments: 17. Rajendran filed an additional affidavit along with additional documents setting out the later developments. To underline the importance of the later developments, we may note that the Tribunal has assessed the damages on the premise that Rajendran’s was a temporary disability, that he would be out of action for a year or so, and that he would soon be resuming his normal life and profession, too. But that was not to be. So, let us examine those developments. 18. Ext. A-5 is the Whole-Body Spiral CT Scan Report, dt. 30-06-2001, of Plain Axial Sections of Head issued by the Department of Radio diagnosis, Medical College. It reveals a fracture to left frontal bone. Ext. A-6, Reference Card, issued by the Medical College Hospital, shows that Rajendran sustained “comminuted fracture, fractured frontal bone, and sprain (R) ankle.” Ext.A-8 Certificate of Disability, dated 27-3-2005, issued by the Orthopaedic Surgeon, Govt. Hospital, Perumbavoor, shows that Rajendran sustained “fracture shaft of (L) humerus, fracture frontal bone (L) side, and sprain ankle”: the disability was assessed at 25% (L) upper limb. Therefore, Rajendran filed I.A. No. 13/2005 for enhancement of the claim to Rs. 4 lakhs. And the Tribunal took the petition and the documents on file. 19. Hospital, Perumbavoor, shows that Rajendran sustained “fracture shaft of (L) humerus, fracture frontal bone (L) side, and sprain ankle”: the disability was assessed at 25% (L) upper limb. Therefore, Rajendran filed I.A. No. 13/2005 for enhancement of the claim to Rs. 4 lakhs. And the Tribunal took the petition and the documents on file. 19. Rajendran has further pleaded that even though he had all the treatment at Medical College Hospital, Calicut, his disability was not reduced. In fact, serious complications developed: free movement of the left shoulder and hand was completely constricted. Moreover, the injury to the frontal bone severely affected his memory, which he lost considerably. Despite his continuing treatment at various hospitals—including alternative medication—for many years, he had no improvement and remained in a vegetative state. He could neither walk nor stand. Rajendran’s sedentary life made him gain weight: from 74 kg. to 116 kg. 20. He was found entirely unfit to be a driver ever again in his life; he lost all his career prospects and condemned to lead the life of an invalid, but has the duty, in his mid-50s, of supporting a family comprising his wife and two grown-up daughters. 21. In fact, before us too, Rajendran appeared. One hand cramped and weakened, feet swollen, and body corpulent, he presented a pathetic picture. Discussion: On the Scope of Section 128: 22. Interpreting Section 128, this Court has held in Rathi Menon v Union of India ( 2001(2) KLT 12 ) that a party has two alternatives: A person can avail himself of his civil remedy to claim compensation based on common law or any statutory provision; he can avail himself of the remedy before the Tribunal under Section 124 or 124A of the Act. His is a Hobson’s choice. 23. Rathi Menon, poignantly portraying the victim’s plight, holds that Chapter XIII of the Act intends to provide a speedier remedy to the victims of accident and untoward incidents. If she chose the latter, that does not mean she should be prepared to get a lesser amount. She is assured by the legislature that the Central Government undertakes to prescribe fair and just compensation in the rules periodically. 24. Pertinent is the observation in Rathi Menon that the provisions do not intended to give a gain to the Railway Administration, but they afford just and reasonable compensation to the victims in a speedier measure. She is assured by the legislature that the Central Government undertakes to prescribe fair and just compensation in the rules periodically. 24. Pertinent is the observation in Rathi Menon that the provisions do not intended to give a gain to the Railway Administration, but they afford just and reasonable compensation to the victims in a speedier measure. If a person sues, the compensation depends upon what the court considers just and reasonable on the date of determination. Hence, when the victim goes before the Claims Tribunal, the quantification should be as on the date of determination. Inflation: Tort Damage Awards: (220-21) 25. In Law and Inflation (4 2001(2) KLT 12 ) the learned author Keith S. Rosenn has elaborately dealt with the supposed inadequacy of the traditional methods to compute the compensation in tort cases. Rosenn surveys the law in multiple jurisdictions spanning across the nations of both the common law and civil law. He observes that courts have been asked to consider the effects of inflation on tortdamage awards in essentially four contexts: First, when asked to set aside a verdict upon the ground it is excessive, courts commonly compare the challenged verdict with prior awards. Second, courts are commonly asked to consider the effect of inflation between the date of the tort and the date of the trial or judgment. Third, appellate courts are sometimes asked to revise an award because of inflation which has occurred between the date of the judgment and the date of appeal. Last, courts are often asked to consider inflation in determining damages for future loss, such as lost earnings or future medical expenses. 26. On comparison of verdicts, Rosenn observes, common-law courts exercise a general supervisory power over tort verdicts to ensure that awards do not become excessive. It is usual to compare current verdicts with those rendered in the past on similar set of facts. It is well settled that ‘courts will consider inflation since the time past verdicts rendered’ ( 2001(2) KLT 12 ). 27. On inflation between dates of tort and of trial, Rosenn further observes that in an inflationary economy substantial delay between the date of trial and that of the tort may make a significant difference in recoverable damage. It is well settled that ‘courts will consider inflation since the time past verdicts rendered’ ( 2001(2) KLT 12 ). 27. On inflation between dates of tort and of trial, Rosenn further observes that in an inflationary economy substantial delay between the date of trial and that of the tort may make a significant difference in recoverable damage. Anglo-American courts [let us read ‘common-law courts’] are still likely to apply a nominalist solution and presume that a dollar, pound, or rupee is always equal to itself, regardless of changes in relative purchasing power. He quotes in that regard Denning L. J’s assertion in Philips v. Ward. 28. According to the learned author, the common-law position has nothing to commend it, save simplicity. From a policy standpoint, it makes no sense whatsoever to force the innocent tort victim to shoulder the burden of monetary depreciation, and to reward the tortfeasor with the windfall of paying off his obligation in depreciated currency. Though no fault of his own, the tort victim is forced to accept less than a complete indemnity. 29. Accepting that this inequity to a limited extent may be offset by the allowance of legal interest, Rosenn, however, observes that in most countries the legal interest has been set at a fixed rate ranging between 4 to 8 percent per annum. Many civil law countries —France applying it directly—have adopted to inflation by shifting the date for valuing damages from the day of the injury to the day of judgment. Indeed, some countries achieved this shift by employing, what Rosenn calls, an intriguing doctrinal device of the debt of value. The Debt Value of Adoptable Debt: 30. This doctrinal devise of shifting the onus of monetary depreciation to the tortfeasor is variously described in different jurisdictions: Wertschuld, debito di valor, or deuda de valor. Simply put, a debt of value, sometimes called an adaptable debt, requires the obligor to pay an economic value rather than a fixed pecuniary sum. Repetitive it may seem, the debt of value is essentially a doctrinal device for placing the risk of monetary depreciation on the obligor when it appears just to do so. 31. Simply put, a debt of value, sometimes called an adaptable debt, requires the obligor to pay an economic value rather than a fixed pecuniary sum. Repetitive it may seem, the debt of value is essentially a doctrinal device for placing the risk of monetary depreciation on the obligor when it appears just to do so. 31. The courts of Australia and Germany have considered tort damages as debts of value and have placed on the tortfeasor the onus of monetary depreciation by requiring assessment of damages in terms of values in effect at the date of the judgment. The highest courts of Belgium and Italy have also adopted the position that tort damages are debts of value, and that damages must therefore be calculated as of the date of the judgment. 32. Severe inflation and the influence of European doctrine and case law have recently led the courts of Argentina and Brazil to accept the doctrine of the debt of value and to shift the time for calculating tort damages from the date of the accident to that of the judgment. 33. Several years of sustained galloping inflation has led the Israeli Supreme Court to replace its traditional Anglo-Saxon damages approach with a “revaluation remedy,’’ which in result, though not in theory, is virtually identical with the debt-of-value approach. The Israeli Supreme Court has reasoned that because inflation is foreseeable, depreciation in the nominal value of assessed tort damages is a direct consequence of the tort. Therefore, the damage resulting from inflation’s erosion of the nominal amount of damages is also compensable. The misnamed “revaluation remedy’’ ordered by the Israeli Supreme Court is actually the assessment of damages as of, or as close as feasible to, the day of judgment. 34. Rosenn, after surveying the methods and practices adopted both in the common-law and civil-law jurisdictions, has felt that whether or not one subscribes to the doctrinal construct of the debt of value, the result of revaluing damage awards at the date of judgment is far preferable to a method that accords with the traditional view of assessing damage as on the date of the injury. The traditional view, according to him, is unworkable in an inflationary economy. 35. Besides other things, the traditional method gives the tortfeasor an enormous economic incentive to delay the litigation as much as possible. In legal theory, the tort victim is an involuntary creditor. The traditional view, according to him, is unworkable in an inflationary economy. 35. Besides other things, the traditional method gives the tortfeasor an enormous economic incentive to delay the litigation as much as possible. In legal theory, the tort victim is an involuntary creditor. He never assumed the risk of monetary depreciation and is unprotected against it. The risk appropriately belongs on the shoulders of the tortfeasor, who otherwise profits from paying off his obligation in depreciated currency.(Id). What is Compensation: 36. This Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kamalakshy Ammal ( 2001(2) KLT 12 ), an illuminating judgment, has discussed many foreign authorities on the issue. Lord Devlin in H, West & Son. Ltd. v. Shephard ( 2001(2) KLT 12 ) has aptly put in context the concept of compensation: "What is meant by compensation that is fair and not full? I think it means this. What would a fair-minded man, not a millionaire, but one with a sufficiency of means to discharge all his moral obligations, feel called on to do for a plaintiff whom by his careless act he had reduced to so pitiable a condition? Let me assume for this purpose that there is normal consciousness and all the mental Suffering that would go with it. It will not be a sum to plumb the depths of his contrition, but one that will enable him to say that he has done whatever money cannot He Has ex hypothesi already provided for all the expenses to which the plaintiff has been put and he has replaced all the income which she has lost. What more should he do, so that he can hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval, that he has done the fair thing?" 37. Kamalakshy Ammal, first, acknowledges that the courts are inclined to recognise the fall in value of money while assessing the compensation, or fixing the market value, or estimating the unliquidated damages. In this context, it quotes the courts’ initial hesitant approach: Denning L.J. (as he then was) expressed his view in Jefford v. Gee ( 2001(2) KLT 12 ) that "a man who stipulates for a pound must take a pound when payment is made, whatever the pound is worth at that time". In 1977, Lord Denning M. R. felt that his own earlier view needs change. In 1977, Lord Denning M. R. felt that his own earlier view needs change. So in Cookson v. Knowles ( 2001(2) KLT 12 ) he acknowledged the shortcoming in his earlier views: "In Jefford we said that, in personal injury cases, when a lump sum is awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, interest should run 'from the date of service of the writ to the date of trial'. At that time inflation did not stare us in the face. We had not in mind continuing inflation and its effect on awards. It is obvious now that the guideline should be changed. The courts invariably assess the lump sum on the 'scale' for figures current at the date of trial, which is much higher than the figure current at the date of injury or at the date of writ. The plaintiff thus stands to gain by the delay in bringing the case to trial'. 38. Kamalakshy Ammal further quotes with approval the view on this aspect set out in the American Jurisprudence ( 2001(2) KLT 12 ): "Many cases have considered the effect which changes in the cost of living or the purchasing power of money should have on the amount of damages awarded in actions for personal injuries or wrongful death. The problem is presented because often the trial of the case is held several months or years after the injury, and further, the award - at least where the injury is permanent - compensates for injuries which will continue many years into the future. The rule is now well settled that a court, in determining whether an award of damages for personal injuries is proper, can consider the changes in the cost of living or, in its alternative expression, in the purchasing power of money. The court may also take account of future prospects of inflation or deflation, in fixing personal injury damages. The basis of this rule is that compensation means compensation in money, and the" value of money lies not in intrinsic worth but in what it will buy. Thus, reviewing courts state that changes in the value of money are considered in determining whether a particular award of damages is excessive or inadequate." 39. The basis of this rule is that compensation means compensation in money, and the" value of money lies not in intrinsic worth but in what it will buy. Thus, reviewing courts state that changes in the value of money are considered in determining whether a particular award of damages is excessive or inadequate." 39. Eventually, Kamalakshi Ammal, displaying vision and foresight, has held that in working out the compensation, the court or Tribunal has wide discretion in the matter and in so doing, and in awarding a "fair" and "just" compensation, or a "reasonable" one, it may take into consideration the prevailing purchasing power of rupee to see that the awards must keep pace with the growing inflation. This is one factor to be borne in mind to enable the Tribunal or court to be just, real, and reasonable in all circumstances. 40. Earlier, Mathai Kunjamma v Geevarghese ( 2001(2) KLT 12 ) dealt with this aspect. It quoted with approval the Delhi High Court’s view in Jaimal Singh v Jawala Devi ( 2001(2) KLT 12 ) that "in assessing damages in fatal accident cases, compensation should be calculated so as to allow for the increasing cost in a depreciating currency.” And a Judge cannot shut his eyes to the inflationary trend and the fact that the rupee has considerably gone down in value. 41. Mathai Kunjamma went on to describe with poetic penchant the ravages of inflation on a long-drawn litigation: To her, it had been almost a struggle between existence and extinction. She survives, though extremely exhausted. The depleted money value of the decree, after meeting the litigation expenses spanning a decade, and covering three courts, will virtually make her victory a barren one. And it ultimately holds: 25. In advanced countries, legal thought has been bestowed on the question as to how full justice could be done to a party by counter-acting the high inflationary trend. The depleted money value of the decree, after meeting the litigation expenses spanning a decade, and covering three courts, will virtually make her victory a barren one. And it ultimately holds: 25. In advanced countries, legal thought has been bestowed on the question as to how full justice could be done to a party by counter-acting the high inflationary trend. Lord Denning, who was insistent on seeing 'a pound as a pound', disregarded "alike the debasement of the currency by kings and rulers or the depreciation of it by the march of time or events." The joint resolution of the Congress in the United States which declared 'gold clauses to be contrary to public policy', (the validity of which was upheld in 294 U.S. 248 infra) and a like legislation, in Canada, under the Gold Clauses Act, 1937 and in France, even since the France Prussian War have been referred to. According to Lord Denning, to hold Gold Clauses valid in England for internal payments, "would be opening a door through which lessors and mortgagees, debenture-holders and preference shareholders, and many others, may all pass". He gave expression to his views with an emotional overtone, when he said: "What then is to become of sterling? It would become a discredited currency unable to look its enemy inflation in the face. That should not be allowed to happen". On the construction of the relevant clause, Morris, LJ agreed with Denning while Harman, LJ dissented. 26. The disturbing aspects of high inflation rates had been discussed in other jurisdictions too. According to Ian F.G. Buxter, "in times of inflation, monetary obligations have a 'congenital infirmity', which affects the payee in most cases". In the context of German inflation, the courts there had adopted the principle of revalorisation of debts. This was done by interpreting a provision of the Civil Code 'that the debtor must perform as good faith requires taking into account general usage.' Various devices like the 'gold clause', the 'modality clause', 'index clause' and 'commodity clause' have been innovated to offset the ill-effects of the inflationary trends, and to ensure that such effects are properly and justly distributed. (internal quotes omitted) 42. Indeed, in Taylor v. O'Connor, ( 2001(2) KLT 12 ) too, the House of Lords dealt with the question of inflation as an element affecting the amount of damages in an accident claim. (internal quotes omitted) 42. Indeed, in Taylor v. O'Connor, ( 2001(2) KLT 12 ) too, the House of Lords dealt with the question of inflation as an element affecting the amount of damages in an accident claim. Lord Reid has observed that “to take any account of future inflation will no doubt fuse complications and make estimates even more uncertain. No doubt we should not assume the worst but it would, I think, be quite unrealistic to refuse to take it into account at all." 43. So, summarized, the issue about how compensation is calibrated, well-entrenched is the judicial view that inflation is no insignificant factor, and it must be accounted for. And the award of compensation must offset the inflationary impact and ensure that rupee awarded reflects its purchase power on the day of award, rather than on the day of accident. 100% Disability – What Is? 44. Rule 3 (2) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, reads thus: "3. Amount of Compensation: - (1) xx xx xx (2) The amount of compensation payable for injury not specified in Part II or Part III of the Schedule but which, in the opinion of the Claims Tribunal is such as to deprive a person of all capacity to do any work, shall be rupees four lakhs." 45. To begin with, we have already dealt with how much this four lakh rupees should be with the rupee’s buying capacity fluctuating. Now, we will examine what “to deprive a person of all capacity to do any work” is. 46. Existence is not animalistic. Nor is human existence mere survival. It is more than that. The survival instinct being an evolutionary essence, man tries under all circumstances to preserve himself—to survive as a necessity and to thrive as a possibility, even as a desirability. So, man’s survival mechanism never permits him to be sedentary. He works. Work is man, or at least man is what he does. We glorify ourselves by what we do; our profession is our identity, our essence, and our very being. (One gender is expressed to avoid the infelicity of employing the dual gender—man and woman—for which English has no personal pronoun. Woman always equates Man—and perhaps more.) 47. So, a surgeon, after losing his hand in an accident, can still be, say, a guard at the very hospital. He can still earn. (One gender is expressed to avoid the infelicity of employing the dual gender—man and woman—for which English has no personal pronoun. Woman always equates Man—and perhaps more.) 47. So, a surgeon, after losing his hand in an accident, can still be, say, a guard at the very hospital. He can still earn. Then can we say he has not lost capacity to do any work? Dignity of labour apart, and the survival instinct not discounted, an Einstein having lost his ability, by an accident or otherwise, is no longer an Einstein; he is just one in the multitude, an insignificant spec merely existing. So “all capacity to do any work” should be understood to mean all capacity to do any work of his calling for which he or she has skill and training. Nothing else. 48. An accident victim, a driver, lost his right leg—had it amputated. His physical disability was estimated at 40%. But the question is whether it would amount to 100% disability professionally. The Supreme Court in S.Suresh v Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd and another ( 2001(2) KLT 12 ) has relied on Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata ( 2001(2) KLT 12 ), and held that it would amount to total disablement in terms of Section 2 (1) (1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, if such disablement, whether temporary or permanent, incapacitates workman for all work which he could perform at the time of the accident. 49. Be it a carpenter or a driver, S.Suresh went on to observe, sustained an injury of such a nature as to permanently disable him, the question would be “whether the disablement incapacitated the respondent for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident.” It answered in the affirmative. 50. In New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v Santhosh ( 2001(2) KLT 12 ), a driver lost one eye in an accident. This Court has held that undoubtedly the job of a driver in a heavy vehicle, especially a tanker lorry which carries inflammable articles, calls for high skill, expertise, and fitness. Most of the time, the drivers of these vehicles may have to undertake inter-State overnight-journeys covering long distances. No employer will, under normal circumstances, engage a one-eyed driver to drive a heavy vehicle. Most of the time, the drivers of these vehicles may have to undertake inter-State overnight-journeys covering long distances. No employer will, under normal circumstances, engage a one-eyed driver to drive a heavy vehicle. It will be hazardous for a one-eyed driver to undertake long-distance overnight drive on highways, particularly if it is a heavy transport vehicle, like a tanker lorry with a heavy load. In that context, this Court has scoffed at the rival contention that “the claimant cannot be considered to have been totally disabled for “all work”, which he might have been capable to perform at the time of the accident, is totally preposterous, to say the least.” 51. Santhosh goes on to observe that even if the claimant gets some other employment, which need not necessarily be that of a driver, it cannot be said that he must be satisfied with whatever he gets as remuneration from such an employment. The claimant had been working as a professional driver of heavy transport vehicles. Loss of one eye has obviously resulted in permanent disablement as for him. So, the disablement must be reckoned as 100%. K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2008(2) KLT 995 (SC) adopts the same view. 52. In Union of India v Ad-hoc Claims Commissioner and others ( 2001(2) KLT 12 ), referring to the old Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6, observes that “this sub-rule applies when the injury is not specified in Part II of the Schedule but at the same time deprives a person of all capacity to do any work. And 'work' obviously means vocational or occupational work. This sub-clause applies when the injury is not specified in Part II of the Schedule but at the same time the injury deprives a person of all capacity to do any work. This sub-rule has no application where permanent partial disablement is caused by the injury of the accident, as such injury deprives no person of all capacity to do any work. 53. In Union of India v Ad-Hoc Claims Commissioner and another ( 2001(2) KLT 12 ) the Allahabad High Court, again interpreting the old rules, has observed that if an injury has caused permanent partial disablement covered by Sub-rule (2), the same injury will not fall under Sub-rule (3) because the same injury cannot simultaneously cause partial permanent disablement as well as temporary disablement, total or partial. The second clause of Sub-rule (3) dealing with injuries resulting in pain and suffering without causing disablement obviously cannot include injuries which have caused disablement mentioned in Sub-rule (2) or in the first clause of Sub-rule (3). The injured person is no doubt entitled to compensation for each injury. This is specifically mentioned in the first proviso to Rule 6. But the various clauses of Rule 6 clarify that one injury cannot fall under more than one of the three sub-rules. In this respect the sub-rules of Rule 6 are mutually exclusive. Conclusions: (a) Award of Compensation: (1) So, we unhesitatingly declare that Rajendran has suffered an injury not specified in Part II or Part III of the Schedule, and it has deprived him of all capacity to do any work. (2) Rule 3 (2) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, imposes a cap on the maximum allowable compensation. Indeed, through G.S.R. 1165(E), dt.22.12.2016, the Ministry of Railways issued a notification raising the maximum compensation to Rs.8,00,000/-. But it is prospective. Here, as the accident occurred in 2001, the old schedule applies. Our ordering compensation at the amended rate is impermissible. Any other detour to avoid the cap amounts to judicial legislation— equally impermissible. Absent periodic revision of the cap, which is desirable but which is impracticable given the legislative load, a person’s getting four lakh rupees in 2017 actually amounts a trifle compared to a person’s getting the same amount in 1998. In fact, it works manifest injustice and results in invidious discrimination. If legislatively fixed amounts, especially in beneficial legislations, are linked to inflation index, it avoids strain on the legislation, be it principal or subordinate, and renders equitable compensation at all times. So, we hold that Rajendran is entitled to the compensation at the value of Rs.4,00,000/- as in 1998, when the legislative cap was fixed. In other words, beginning from 1998, the inflation indexes up to 22.06.2001, the date of accident, must be applied to that amount. The amount so arrived at has to be reckoned as Rs.4,00,000/- in terms of actual money purchase power as on the date of accident. In other words, beginning from 1998, the inflation indexes up to 22.06.2001, the date of accident, must be applied to that amount. The amount so arrived at has to be reckoned as Rs.4,00,000/- in terms of actual money purchase power as on the date of accident. (b) Interest on Compensation: The Supreme Court in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi v. Union of India ( 2009 (7) SCC 372 ) has held: Even though there is no provision in either of the Acts for payment of interest on the awarded sum, there is no denying the fact that the right to claim compensation accrued on the date of the incident, although, compensation is to be computed from the date of the Award of the Claims Tribunal. In cases where the statute does not make any specific provision for payment of interest on any awarded sum, the power of the Courts to grant interest can also be referred to from the provisions of the Interest Act, 1978 and the Code of Civil Procedure. When there is no specific provision for grant of interest on any amount due, the Court and even Tribunals have been held to be entitled to award interest in their discretion, under the provisions of S.3 of the Interest Act and S.34 of the Civil Procedure Code. Going by the above holding, which has been followed consistently, we also declare that Rajendran is entitled interest @9% per annum from 22.06.2001 till the date of actual payment on the amount so arrived. We thus allow this Miscellaneous First Appeal. No order on costs.