Case: Subulaxmi Vs. M.D. T.Nadu State Transp.Corp

3. The facts which are essential to be exposited are that on 13th March, 1998, theaged about 30 years, a match industry worker while travelling in a bus bearing registration number TNbelonging to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Division (V), the respondent No. 2 before the tribunal, met with an accident with another bus bearing registration number TNbelonging to the Madurai Division (I) of the said Corporation, the respondent No. 1 therein. The accident occurred because of careless and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles. In the accident, the claimant suffered grievous injuries which eventually resulted in the amputation of left leg below knee and abrasion in right shoulder and later amputation of right foot. It was averred that she was earning a sum of Rs.1,500/per month at the time of accident and remained in the hospital for a period of five and half months. Computing the amount expended, pain and suffering, incapacity to have any future income and the deprivation of other amenities of life and future comforts she claimed a sum of Rs.6,50,000/as compensation. The tribunal granted Rs.2,00,000/as compensation by award dated 22.10.2002 and fastened the liability on both the respondents. It is necessary to state here that the tribunal had awarded Rs.86,000/towards permanent disability assessing the same at 86%, Rs.14,000/towards pain and suffering, Rs.66,000/on the head of loss of future income, Rs.10,000/for medical expenses, Rs.15,000/towards extra nourishment, Rs.5,000/for loss of income during the treatment period and Rs.4,000/towards transport charges.4. Being grieved by the award, the Corporation preferred C.M.A. No. 2964 of 2003 and the claimant preferred Cross Objection (MD) No. 45 of 2008 for enhancement of the quantum. The High Court, while computing the amount of compensation, did not grant any amount for permanent disability but enhanced the future income to Rs.1,15,000/and added Rs.75,000/for replacement of artificial limb and for future medical expenses. It also granted Rs.10,000/for loss of amenities and Rs.10,000/towards attendant charges. On certain heads it also marginally enhanced the amount as a consequence of which the amounts stood enhanced to Rs.It is apt to mention here that the High Court came to the conclusion that the claimant was entitled for compensation for loss of earning capacity due to disability and both were to be in compartment. It also did not grant interest on the enhanced sum. In the ultimate eventuate the High Court vide its judgment dated 14.7.2010 rejected the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 and allowed thein part. Being dissatisfied, the claimant has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

Court's reasoning:
In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another [2012 (10) SCALE 516 ], after referring to Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh [(1990) 3 SCC 723] and B. Kothandapani v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. [(2011) 6 SCC 420] , this Court expressed the view that compensation can be granted towards permanent disability as well as loss of future earnings, for one head relates to the impairment ofcapacity and the other relates to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself. The Bench also relied upon Laxman v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another [2012 ACJ 191 ], wherein it has been laid downratio of the above noted judgments is that if the victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to accident, loss of earnings andinability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to thethe view expressed by the High Court on this score is not sustainable.In the case at hand, the tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.86,000/towards the permanent disability. The High Court has deleted it. The said deletion as per our above discussion is impermissible. In our considered opinion regard being had to the nature of injury suffered and further taking note of the date of accident, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/on this head would be appropriate and, accordingly, we so determine.As far as the pain and suffering and loss of amenities are concerned, we think it is appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.In respect of other heads, namely, medical expenses, extra nourishment, transport charges and loss of earning during treatment, the amount awarded by the High Court is allowed to remain as such. Thus, the amount on the aforesaid scores would come to Rs.Thus analysed, we are disposed to think that the High Court has erred in not granting interest on the enhanced sum. As is evincible, the tribunal had granted payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we find that the interest awarded by the tribunal is just and proper and accordingly we direct that the interest on the differential enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit of the same before the tribunal. The respondent corporation is directed to deposit the differential amount before the tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today.