IMPORTANT POINT
In such claims Courts approach should be liberal as well as balanced.

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.-Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. The appellant as claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity `the Act’) before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srivilliputtur (for short `the tribunal’) forming the subject matter of MCOP No. 244 of 1999, putting forth a claim of Rs.6,50,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. Her claim petition was tried along with the petition preferred by one Mrs. Muthammal, the applicant in MCOP No. 245 of 1999.

3. The facts which are essential to be exposited are that on 13th March, 1998, the claimant-appellant, aged about 30 years, a match industry worker while travelling in a bus bearing registration number TN 59-N0912 belonging 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 TN 59-N0912 belonging 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.2,75,000/-. 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 the cross-objection in part. Being dissatisfied, the claimant has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

5. At the outset, it is requisite to be stated that the facts as have been adumbrated are not in dispute. Therefore, first we shall advert to the issue whether the High Court was justified in awarding compensation on a singular head relating to permanent disability and loss of future earning. 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