JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. The claimant-appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 106 of 1999 dated 28th day of November, 2011 has preferred this appeal praying to enhance the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant-appellant. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.04.1999 while the claimant-appellant along with others while travelling in the bus bearing registration no. BR-14P-5455, due to negligent driving of the driver, the said bus met with an accident, as a result of which several passengers of the bus including the claimant-appellant sustained injury. It is the further case of the claimant-appellant that she suffered multiple grievous injury on her both hands and other parts of her body. Her left hand has completely been amputated and due to injuries being sustained on her head she is unable to perform her normal work and is suffering from permanent impaireness of the strength of her whole body. The claimant-appellant was treated at R.M.C.H., Ranchi from the date of accident to 22.05.1999 and thereafter from 14.06.1999 to 22.06.1999. A disablement certificate has also been issued to the claimant-appellant by the District Handicapped Medical Board, Ranchi, showing the disablement of the applicant to the extent of 100%. The opposite party-respondent no.1-owner of the offending bus did not appear in the Tribunal and was debarred from filing any written statement. The opposite party-respondent no.2-United India Insurance Company Ltd. was the insurer of the offending bus. In its written statement, the opposite party-respondent no.2 inter alia pleaded that the driver of the bus was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. 4. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal altogether framed eight issues which are as follows:- (i) Whether the applicant’s case filed U/s. 166 of the M.V. Act 1988 is maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether the claimant has got valid cause of action for instituting the compensation case? (iii) Whether the injured Sunita Tigga sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 29.04.1999 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus No. BR-14P-5455? (iv) Whether the driver of the vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence at the material time of accident? (iii) Whether the injured Sunita Tigga sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 29.04.1999 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus No. BR-14P-5455? (iv) Whether the driver of the vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence at the material time of accident? (v) Whether a valid and effective permit was obtained by the owner of the vehicle for carrying a Barat Party? (vi) Whether the bus was over loaded at the time of accident? (vii) Whether the claimant is entitled to for amount of compensation as claimed for? If so, by whom and to what extent? (viii) To what other relief or reliefs the claimant is entitled to get? 5. In support of its case the claimant-appellant examined 5 witnesses including herself and one doctor and proved the following documents:- i. Ext. 1 and Ext. 1/1 are the two discharge summary, ii. Ext. 2 is the prescription, iii. Ext. 3 is the Disablement certificate (with objection), iv. Ext. 4 is the Certified Copy of F.I.R., v. Ext. 5 is the copy of the Charge Sheet, vi. Marked X and Mark X/1 are the two photographs for identification only. 6. The opposite party-respondent no.2 did not adduce any oral evidence but proved the registration ticket of treatment of the appellant dated 10.11.2008 which has been marked as Ext. A (with objection), the certified copy of insurance policy has been marked as Ext. B, certified copy of the driving licence has been marked as Ext. C, certified copy of driving licence verification report has been marked as Ext. D and the certified copy of temporary permit has been marked as Ext. E. 7. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence in the record decided the issue no.1, 2 & 3 in favour of the claimant-appellant and against the opposite party no.2 and held that the offending bus was insured with the opposite party-respondent no.2-insurance company at the time of the accident and held that the opposite party-respondent no.2-insurance company being the insurer of the offending bus is liable to indemnify the owner of the bus and hence liable to pay compensation amount to the claimant-appellant. Considering the fact that in the disablement certificate the age of the claimant was mentioned as 30 years and as the opposite party suggested to the claimant in her cross-examination that she was more than the age of 25 years at the time of her accident, the tribunal assessed the age of the claimant as about 25 years at the time of the accident. Considering the pleading of the claimant that she was a house wife and non-earning member, the Tribunal considered Rs.15,000/- as her notional income and applying the multiplier of 17 assessed the loss of future earning capacity as Rs.2,55,000/- and awarded Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering and awarded a total sum of Rs.2,60,000/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the written statement by the opposite party no.2-Insurance Company i.e. on 28.07.2008. 8. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in quantifying the compensation amount payable to the appellant-claimant and failed to take note of the fact that the appellant-claimant has suffered permanent disability due to non-functioning of her right hand and severe injury in other parts of her body. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the disability certificate which was marked as Ext.3 and awarded a petty amount towards the pain and suffering. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that the claimant-appellant has incurred expenses of nourished food, lodging and conveyance during her treatment both as an indoor patient of Ranchi and Bhubaneshwar in Odisha. 9. In support of his contention that the appellant is entitled to more amount of compensation, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Col. Sanjeev Kumar and Others reported in 2013 (2) T.A.C. 249 (P & H) wherein, in the facts and circumstances of that case where a serving Colonel of Indian Army was rendered blind in an accident on account of penetrating injury in his right eye and had also suffered faciomaxillary injuries and doctor certified him 100% visually handicapped, the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court awarded a compensation of Rs.49,16,120/-. The learned counsel for the appellant next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2013 (3) T.A.C. 747 (S.C.) wherein, in the facts and circumstances of that case when a film actress and model suffered injuries which left permanent scars and caused disfiguration of her face and other parts of her body including her leg and she was suffering from 30% permanent disability, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered 50% of her annual income for the purpose of computation of her future loss and in total awarded a compensation amount of Rs.79,65,726/-. The learned counsel for the appellant next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar and Another reported in 2013 (3) T.A.C. 502 (Del.) wherein in the facts and circumstances of that case where the right leg of the claimant was amputated above knee, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court framed the assessment of permanent disability of 70% of the claimant and awarded the total compensation of Rs.6,35,808/-. The learned counsel for the appellant next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rupesh Rashmikant Shah Vs. Elegant Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Another reported in 2015 (2) T.A.C. 881 (Bom.) wherein, in the facts and circumstances of that case where the claimant after treatment for nearly five and half months in Breach Candy Hospital in a unconscious stage and when the treating neurosurgeon deposed in court that the claimant had a brain atem injury and opined that the claimant will not be able to improve because his brain is permanently damaged, the Hon’ble Court held that the claimant has received 100% disability and in total awarded a compensation amount of Rs.39,92,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shaikh Farooq Mohammad Gaouse Vs. The learned counsel for the appellant next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shaikh Farooq Mohammad Gaouse Vs. Transport Manager, Thane Municipal Transport Undertaking reported in 2013 (2) T.A.C. 404 (Bom.) wherein, in the facts and circumstances of that case, the claimant a young businessman with two employees for repairs of Mobile phones with acquired good will in the Market and business earnings of Rs.15,000/- per month suffered multiple fractures in ribs and suffered permanent disability despite huge expenses towards medical treatment, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court awarded a total compensation of Rs.30,70,000/- . Hence, it is submitted by Mr. Lall that the impugned Judgment and award be modified and the compensation amount awarded to claimant-appellant be enhanced. 10. Mr. Basav Chatterjee, the learned counsel for the opposite party-respondent no.2 on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and award and drawing attention of this Court to the deposition of A.W.4 – Dr. Pramod Tigga who has been examined by the claimant on the point of treatment of injured, Mr. Chatterjee submitted that the said A.W.4 has categorically stated that the fracture of the right hand of the claimant was cured by his treatment in “Kar Clinic” at Bhubaneshwar by Dr. Santosh Rath -who is a surgery specialist. The learned counsel for the opposite party-respondent no.2 also drew the attention of this Court to the deposition of A.W.4 wherein, he has stated that the claimant-appellant cannot be brought in normal condition but through the treatment there may be some improvement in her hand and presently the hand was not functioning properly but the radius bone of the hand of the claimant-appellant is united and the said union is completed within two months to six months after operation of the patient. Mr. Basav Chatterjee further submitted that as A.W.4 who admittedly is the younger brother of the husband of the claimant-appellant himself stated that the bone has united and after treatment there is likelihood of improvement in the right hand of the claimant-appellant, so the claimant-appellant cannot be termed as 100% permanently disabled and drawing attention of the Court to the Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar and Another (Supra), Mr. Ashok Kumar and Another (Supra), Mr. Chatterjee submits that since in case of amputation of a leg from knee upwards a disability of 70% was framed hence in this case also that at the most the disability can be framed at 70%. It is, further, submitted that the tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and the impugned judgment and award having rightly been passed, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 11. Having heard the submission made at the Bar, before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be relevant to refer the settled principle of law granting compensation for personal injury. 12. After considering judicial precedent the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has laid down, following proposition in paragraph 6,10, and 19 in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 :- “6. 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. (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. 10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. 19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above: (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.”(Emphasis Supplied) 13. In Kabita v. M/s Deepak & Ors. reported in (2012) 8 SCC 604 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this respect has held as under :- “19. In Kabita v. M/s Deepak & Ors. reported in (2012) 8 SCC 604 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this respect has held as under :- “19. In light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned cases, it is suffice to say that in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily, efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of hearing and inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which would have been enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident. The amount awarded under the head of loss of hearning capacity are distinct and do not overlap with the amount awarded for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life or the amount awarded for medical expenses.” (Emphasis Supplied) 14. In Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka reported in (2009) 6 SCC 1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “88. We must emphasise that the court has to strike a balance between the inflated and unreasonable demands of a victim and the equally untenable claim of the opposite party saying that nothing is payable. Sympathy for the victim does not, and should not, come in the way of making a correct assessment, but if a case is made out, the court must not be chary of awarding adequate compensation. The “adequate compensation” that we speak of, must to some extent, be a rule of thumb measure, and as a balance has to be struck, it would be difficult to satisfy all the parties concerned. 89. It must also be borne in mind that life has its pitfalls and is not smooth sailing all along the way (as a claimant would have us believe) as the hiccups that invariably come about cannot be visualised. Life it is said is akin to a ride on a roller-coaster where a meteoric rise is often followed by an equally spectacular fall, and the distance between the two (as in this very case) is a minute or a yard. 90. At the same time we often find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress vis-à-vis a family in a case of death. 90. At the same time we often find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress vis-à-vis a family in a case of death. In the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution enures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person comes at an enormous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim but even more so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity. 91. We can also visualise the anxiety of the complainant and his parents for the future after the latter, as must all of us, inevitably fade away. We, have, therefore computed the compensation keeping in mind that his brilliant career has been cut short and there is, as of now, no possibility of improvement in his condition, the compensation will ensure a steady and reasonable income to him for a time when he is unable to earn for himself.” (Emphasis Supplied) 15. Now coming the facts of the case, considering the deposition of the A.W.3 Praveen Tigga who is the husband of the claimant-applicant wherein he has stated that the treatment of the claimant is still going on and the doctor has fitted an iron rod on her right hand which would be removed and in his deposition A.W.4-Dr. Pramod Tigga has stated that the skin and the nerves of the claimant appellant has been repaired and the fracture of right hand of the claimant appellant has been cured by them. Keeping in view that the claimant is a home maker, it is appropriate to assess the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from the permanent disability of the appellant claimant at 70%. So far as the loss of future income is concerned as it is admitted case of the claimant appellant that she is a non-earning person and was a home maker, a notional income of a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month i.e. Rs.36000/- per annum will be appropriate amount to be considered for the pecuniary loss suffered because of permanent disability. 3000/- per month i.e. Rs.36000/- per annum will be appropriate amount to be considered for the pecuniary loss suffered because of permanent disability. Considering that her age assessed by the Tribunal as 25 years at the time of accident which is not disputed by the rival parties, the multiplier would be 18, in view of the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. V. DTC reported in (2009) 6 SCC 1 21. Further keeping in view description of treatment of the claimant in the prescription of her medical treatment, it will be appropriate to award Rs.50,000/- towards pain and agony undergone by the claimant appellant and considering the fact of long treatment of the appellant, the attendant charge of Rs.10,000/- would be appropriate. So, the loss on account of financial contribution of the claimant appellant comes out to Rs.6,48,000/- but considering that percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from the permanent disability of the claimant is 70%, the total loss on account of her inability to contribute notionally can be assessed to be Rs.4,53,600/-. Adding 50,000/- to this figure on account of pain and mental agony suffered by the claimant and Rs.10,000/- towards the attendant charges, the total amount of compensation comes out to Rs.5,13,600/-. 16 It is a settled principle of law that the interest on the compensation amount is to be paid from the date of the filing of the claim application, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amresh Kumari v. Niranjan Lal Jagdish Pd. Jain, (2015) 4 SCC 433 in paragraph -2 which reads as under:- “2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The question whether interest on the amount of compensation determined to be payable to the claimant is to be awarded from the date of the award or from the date of the filing of the claim petition came up for consideration before this Court in Mohinder Kaur v. Hira Nand Sindhi (2015) 4 SCC 434 , to which one of us (D.K. Jain, J.) was a party, it was held that the claimant was entitled to interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. … … ….”(Emphasis Supplied) 17. … … ….”(Emphasis Supplied) 17. Thus the claimant appellant will be entitled to simple interest over the said amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. Accordingly, the respondent no.2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount of Rs.5,13,600/- with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, less the amount if any, already paid to the claimant appellant within three months from the date of this judgment. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the aforesaid extent only. 18. The instant appeal is disposed of with modification of the quantum of compensation as indicated above. No order as to costs. 19. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the respondent no.2-Insurance Company for necessary compliance. 20. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the court below along with a copy of this Judgment forthwith.