JUDGMENT : N. Kirubakaran, J. 1. Instantaneous death would have been justified in this case instead of a vegetative life, which the victim led, for more than 8 years, before resting in peace. For no fault of his, he sustained injuries because of the rash and negligence of the driver of Tata Ace vehicle, insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. The pain and agony, which the family members of the victim would have undergone during 8 years of vegetative life of the victim cannot be spelt out in words. No amount of money would compensate either the victim or the family members, who were suffering for 8 years on seeing their loved one suffering. This case would demonstrate as to how negligence of a person causes havoc in the life of an unknown innocent person and his family members. Therefore, it is the duty of every rider or driver of the vehicle to drive carefully not only in their interest and their family members, but also in the interest of innocent third parties and their family members. 2. It is not like any other case where the victim of the accident died on the spot on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. It is an exceptional case where right from the date of accident, the victim was unconscious and slipped into coma and remained so, for about 8 years and 4 months, making the family members also suffer. No one should be made to undergo such a terrible experience in life. The family members have withstood the mental agony and suffering and God is the only resort, who could give them succour, to lead the rest of their life in peace, after having lost their loved one. 3. C.M.A. No. 1646 of 2015 has been preferred by the victim (who subsequently died) and his family members and C.M.A. No. 1301 of 2017 has been preferred by M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company as against the very same award, both of them questioning the quantum of compensation awarded. 4. On the fateful day, i.e. on 16.07.2007, the victim was riding his motor cycle from North to South, on the left side of the road near Pachaiyappa College at Periyar EVR Salai Signal, New Avadi High Road and driving towards West, namely, Aminjikarai. 4. On the fateful day, i.e. on 16.07.2007, the victim was riding his motor cycle from North to South, on the left side of the road near Pachaiyappa College at Periyar EVR Salai Signal, New Avadi High Road and driving towards West, namely, Aminjikarai. At that time, a Tata Ace Vehicle, which was coming from Parry's Corner, had jumped the signal rashly, negligently and speedily and hit the victim's two-wheeler from behind resulting in the victim falling and sustaining injuries. He suffered and continued to suffer for eight years and finally died on 27.11.2015 for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. Hence, the claim petition. 5. On contest, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of Tata Ace vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs. 39,55,535/- as compensation. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded, both the claimants as well as the Insurance Company are before this Court by filing the above appeals. 6. Both the appeals are heard together and the following judgment is passed. 7. Heard Mr. S. Alex Raj, learned counsel appearing for Mr. D. Baskar, learned counsel for the claimants and Mr. P. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for Mr. K. Moorthy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 8. The owner of Tata Ace Vehicle remained ex parte before the Trial Court and therefore, there is no necessity to serve notice on the owner in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in Mrs. Jamuna Bai V. V. Chhote Singh reported in I (2004) Acc. 190 (FB). 9. Heard the parties and perused the records very meticulously. 10. Though the question, which falls for consideration is only with regard to the quantum of compensation as both appeals confine to the quantum aspect alone, a perusal of the records would reveal that the victim was riding his motor cycle on New Avadi Road from North to South Direction, near Pachaiyappa's College, at Periyar EVR Salai Signal and he was hit down by Tata Ace vehicle driven in a rash and negligent manner. To prove that Tata Ace vehicle was driven rashly and negligently, the claimants examined an eyewitness as P.W.2, who categorically stated that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle. To prove that Tata Ace vehicle was driven rashly and negligently, the claimants examined an eyewitness as P.W.2, who categorically stated that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle. The evidence of P.W.2 with regard to the manner of accident is extracted hereunder: Other Language There is no rebuttal evidence let in on the side of the Insurance Company. Further, Ex-P1 FIR and Ex-P3 charge sheet were filed against the driver of offending vehicle and Ex-P1 FIR, which was registered on 16.07.2007 at 5 p.m. would reveal that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle. The following are the statements found in Ex-P1 FIR: Other Language Therefore, based on the evidence of P.W.2, eyewitness and taking into consideration, Exs-P1 and P3, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of Tata Ace vehicle insured with the Insurance Company. Therefore, the said finding reached by the Tribunal is confirmed. 11. A perusal of the records, especially, Ex-P6, Discharge Summary, dated 26.07.2007 would reveal that initially, he was admitted in Apollo First Med Hospital and he was diagnosed to have right SDH with multiple contusion and he underwent craniectomy and decompression at FMH and thereafter, as he required further treatment in speciality, he was shifted to ICU in Apollo Speciality Hospital on 26.07.2007. At the time of admission, he was found to be unconscious and the following has been noted: "CNS: Unconscious GCS E1VTM2; pupil Bilateral 4 mm and non-reacting and Decerebrating to painful stimuli. CT Brain: Acute subdural haematoma in the right fronto temporo parietal region with significant midline shift. Haemorrhagic contusion, ischemic changes in left posterior temporal occipital regions with suggestions of right PCA infract; diffuse cerebral edema. On admission his GCS was 3T/15; antiedema measures were started. Patient had atrial fibrillation for which Adiodarone was started and ECG returned to normal sinus rhythm. Amiodarone was stopped following bradycardia. Craniotomy and decompression was done on 17.07.2007. He was haemodynamically stable, urine output was adequate and with ventilatory support his oxygen saturation was adequate. At discharge he is on tracheostomy with GCS:3T/15 and haemodynamically stable on RTF at 100ml/hr." After continuous treatment, again, he was shifted to Apollo Main Hospital ICU on 01.08.2007. Thereafter, for further management, he was shifted to Apollo Speciality Hospital, ICU on 02.08.2007. He was haemodynamically stable, urine output was adequate and with ventilatory support his oxygen saturation was adequate. At discharge he is on tracheostomy with GCS:3T/15 and haemodynamically stable on RTF at 100ml/hr." After continuous treatment, again, he was shifted to Apollo Main Hospital ICU on 01.08.2007. Thereafter, for further management, he was shifted to Apollo Speciality Hospital, ICU on 02.08.2007. P.W.6 Doctor categorically stated that the victim was bedridden without speech and remained in coma and therefore, he assessed the disability at 100%. The disability certificate Ex-P12 would also prove the same. Therefore, it is very evident from the medical records that the victim remained in coma right from the date of accident. 12. The Manager of Central Co-operative Bank, Chennai, who was examined as P.W.7 deposed that the victim was working as an Assistant Manager in the said Bank and he was in coma and he was absent from duty right from the day he met with accident. He was produced before the Medical Board and the Medical Board certified him to be unfit for his post and the victim was removed from service on 19.03.2010. The aforesaid evidence of P.W.7 would prove that because the victim was in coma, he was unable to attend to his work and he was removed from service on medical grounds on 19.03.2010 as per the Medical Board's Report. Ex-P13 is the termination order issued by the Bank. The second paragraph of the termination order reads as follows: "He has been absent for a long time and his leave was referred to Medical Board and the Board issued a certificate No. 003110/RMB/GH 2009 of 05.03.2009 invalidating him from service on account of his remaining vegetative state of an abasthetic left UL + LL Spasticty and left FTP SDH operated/Hydrocephalated/Tracheostomy and vegetative". 13. Ex-P25, Salary Certificate would reveal that on the date of the accident, the victim was drawing a sum of Rs. 25,329/-. Therefore, as per Ex-P25 and as per the evidence of P.W.7, the Manager, the victim was drawing about Rs. 25,329/- and therefore, the said amount has to be taken as the monthly income. However, the Tribunal erroneously determined the monthly income at Rs. 27,000/- and the same is set aside. The salary, as shown in the salary certificate, namely, Rs. 25,329/- is determined as the monthly income. 14. 25,329/- and therefore, the said amount has to be taken as the monthly income. However, the Tribunal erroneously determined the monthly income at Rs. 27,000/- and the same is set aside. The salary, as shown in the salary certificate, namely, Rs. 25,329/- is determined as the monthly income. 14. Since the victim was in coma stage, the loss of income has to be calculated adopting multiplier method. Life or Death does not make any difference in this case as the victim remained unconscious and in coma till he breathed his last on 27.11.2015, after the passing of the award on 19.03.2015. He was aged about 52 years on the date of accident as Ex-P26 would reveal his date of birth as 06.04.1955. Therefore, following the judgment of Constitution Bench of the Honourable Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case ( 2017 ACJ 2700 ), 15% has to be added towards "future prospects”as he was working as an Assistant Manager in a Bank, which is a permanent job. Therefore, the finding rendered by the Tribunal that the victim is not entitled to future prospects is set aside. Accordingly, adding 15%, "Total Monthly Income" comes to, Monthly Income Rs.25,329/- Add : 15% towards future Prospects Rs.25,329/- (+) 15% (Rs.25,329/-) Rs.25,329/-(+) Rs.3799/- Rs.29,128 The Tribunal erroneously deducted one-third towards “Personal Expenses”of the deceased. It is rudimentary rather elementary that a person could not spend any money, especially, when he is in coma stage. The said fact has been lost sight of by the Tribunal and one-third deduction was made wrongly, as if it is a death case. Therefore, deduction of one-third made by the Tribunal is set aside. 15. The age of the victim was 52 years and the corresponding multiplier, as per the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case is 11. Therefore, applying the said multiplier, "Loss of Future Earnings “comes to Loss of Future Earnings Rs.29,128x12x11 Rs.38,44,896/0 As per Exs-P8 & P9, hospital bills and as per Exs-P10 and P20, Pharmacy bills, Rs. 1,48,336/-, Rs. 5,07,281/-, Rs. 4,39,992/- and Rs. 83,926/- were rightly given by the Tribunal and the said amounts are confirmed. 16. When a person is in a state of coma, he would require medical assistance by a qualified person. Though it is stated by the claimants that from 01.11.2007 till 28.02.2010, a sum of Rs. 1,48,336/-, Rs. 5,07,281/-, Rs. 4,39,992/- and Rs. 83,926/- were rightly given by the Tribunal and the said amounts are confirmed. 16. When a person is in a state of coma, he would require medical assistance by a qualified person. Though it is stated by the claimants that from 01.11.2007 till 28.02.2010, a sum of Rs. 7,93,800/- was paid towards Nursing Charges, to P.W.4, Nurse, as per Ex-P19, the same was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that payment of income tax for the said amount was not produced. The said approach of the Tribunal is a faulty one. If the Nursing Institute had not paid the income tax, it was not the fault of the claimants, who solely depended upon the documents or receipts issued by the Nursing Institute. This case is not a case where the victim was able to move about. Therefore, the rejection of Nursing Charges by the Tribunal is set aside and this Court, based on Ex-P19, awards a sum of Rs. 7,93,800/-. Even after 2010, till the death of the victim on 27.11.2015, he continued to be in a state of coma. Therefore, nursing assistance would have been required to look after him. The Honourable Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Kavita V. Deepak and Others reported in 2012 (2) TN MAC 362 (SC)", awarded a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month for 25 years and awarded totally Rs. 6 lakhs for the victim, who was incapacitated due to the injuries sustained in the accident, which occurred on 02.05.2004 whereas in this case, the accident was in 2007 and the victim continued to be in coma till his death in 2015. Therefore, the monthly attendant charges is fixed at Rs. 6000/- from 2010 onwards till his death in 2015 and for 67 months, the attendant charges would be, Rs. 6000 x 67 = Rs. 4,02,000/- 17. As far as physiotherapy charges is concerned, the Tribunal did not award any amount stating that Ex-P16, Physiotherapy bills amounting to Rs. 13,68,993/- was not accounted to income tax by the Physiotherapy Institute. Admittedly, in this case, the victim was in coma and he needed physiotherapy, otherwise, the victim would have developed bedsore, stiffness of muscles and other complications. Therefore, the claimant should have definitely spent for physiotherapy. It is proved by the evidence of P.W.3, physiotherapist that he continued to give physiotherapy. Admittedly, in this case, the victim was in coma and he needed physiotherapy, otherwise, the victim would have developed bedsore, stiffness of muscles and other complications. Therefore, the claimant should have definitely spent for physiotherapy. It is proved by the evidence of P.W.3, physiotherapist that he continued to give physiotherapy. Ex-P16 would reveal that a sum of Rs. 13,68,993/- was spent towards physiotherapy. It is further fortified by the evidence of P.W.3 and there is no rebuttal evidence on the side of the Insurance Company. As this Court already found that the victim needed physiotherapy for continuous maintenance of victim's body failing which more complications would have arisen, therefore, the sum of Rs. 13,68,993/- as per Ex-P16, which was rejected by the Tribunal, is hereby awarded. The approach of the Tribunal for rejecting Ex-P16 on the ground that the Physiotherapy Institute did not pay income tax could not be accepted. If at all, any mistake had been committed, it was only on the part of the Physiotherapy Institution for which claimants cannot be made to suffer, eventhough they paid money. 18. Towards Nutritious Food and Extra Nourishment, a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was awarded by the Tribunal, which is too low. Only through saline water or by way of tube, the food would have been supplied to the victim and therefore, the sum of Rs. 1 lakh awarded by the Tribunal, which is too low, is enhanced to Rs. 5 lakhs. The sum of Rs. 1 lakh awarded towards "Transportation”is confirmed. 19. As far as pain and suffering is concerned, the victim sustained injuries to such an extent that he lost his consciousness and continued to undergo treatment for the same till his death and therefore, Rs. 1 lakh awarded towards "pain and suffering”is very negligible and a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs is awarded under the said head. 20. "Loss of Amenities”was also awarded along with "Pain and Suffering", i.e., a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was awarded together under the said heads. As already observed, the entire life of the victim is lost and that cannot be redeemed or brought back. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs is awarded separately towards “Loss of Amenities". 21. Though towards “Pain and Suffering", a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was awarded together under the said heads. As already observed, the entire life of the victim is lost and that cannot be redeemed or brought back. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs is awarded separately towards “Loss of Amenities". 21. Though towards “Pain and Suffering", a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was awarded to the victim, the "pain and suffering” undergone by the family members, who could do nothing, but remain as mute spectators, witnessing the passive existence of their loved one like a wooden log, also has to be taken into account. The 13 year old daughter of the victim would have suffered a lot on seeing her father, who is supposed to shower love and affection, lying like an object and therefore, a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs is awarded towards "Pain and Suffering” and "Loss of Love, Affection, Care and Guidance” to the daughter of the victim. 22. Even more pathetic would have been the plight of the wife, who would have been under the fond hope that her husband would be a pillar of support throughout her life and has been deprived of the same and she would have suffered much witnessing the person, who was supposed to be a source of moral strength and whose presence would give her a sense of security, remaining in a vegetative state, besides, loss of marital bliss. Hence, in this regard, a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs is awarded. 23. The subsequent events, which took place after the accident is the demise of the said person. This Court is empowered to take cognisance of the subsequent events, which is admitted by the other party also, namely, the Insurance Company. The death certificate, dated 12.01.2016, which is issued by the City Health Officer, Corporation of Chennai is produced before this Court. A perusal of the same would prove that the victim died on 27.11.2015. Therefore, for "Funeral Expenses", a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded. 24. The death certificate, dated 12.01.2016, which is issued by the City Health Officer, Corporation of Chennai is produced before this Court. A perusal of the same would prove that the victim died on 27.11.2015. Therefore, for "Funeral Expenses", a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded. 24. The enhancements made by this Court, under various heads, are tabled hereunder and the total compensation, payable to the claimants, comes to, Loss of Future Earnings Rs.38,44,896/- Pharmacy Bills(Ex.P10) Rs.4,39,992/- Pharmacy Bills(Ex.P.20) Rs.83,926 Apollo Hospital Bills (Ex.P8) Rs.1,48,336/- Apollo Hospital Bills (Ex.P9) Rs.5,07,281/- Nursing Charges(Ex.P19) Rs.7,93,800/- Attendant Charges Rs.4,02,000/- Physiotherapy Bills (Ex.P16) Rs.13,68,993/- Nutritious Food and Extra Nourishment Rs.5,00,000/- Transportation Charges Rs.1,00,000/- Pain and Suffering Rs.2,00,000/- Loss of Amenities Rs.3,00,000/- Loss of Love, Affection, Care and Guidance to the daughter of the Victim Rs.3,00,000/- Loss of Marital Bliss Rs.3,00,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.93,04,224/- The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal @ 7.5% per annum is confirmed. The claimants shall pay additional court fee for the enhanced amount within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 25. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount, as per the modified award passed by this Court, along with interest and costs, before the Tribunal, after deducting the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the amount equally to bank account of the respective claimants through RTGS, within a period of one week thereon. 26. In the result, C.M.A. No. 1646 of 2015, filed by the claimants, is allowed enhancing the award passed by the Tribunal from Rs. 39,55,535/- to Rs. 93,04,224/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum and C.M.A. No. 1301 of 2017 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. No costs.