S. VIMALA, J.

1. Disabilities is an umbrella term, covering impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions. An impairment is a problem in body function or structure; an activity limitation is a difficulty encountered by an individual in executing a task or action; while a participation restriction is a problem experienced by an individual in involvement in life situations. Disability is thus not just a health problem. It is a complex phenomenon, reflecting the interaction between features of a person s body and features of the society in which he or she lives.

(Disabilities, World Health Organization.)

2. S. Govindaraj, an agriculturist, aged 57 years, earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- p.m. suffered amputation of both of his legs in an accident on 19.05.2013.

2.1. According to the appellant/petitioner, when he was standing in the left side of Vandavasi to Thellar Road, a Bus belonging to the respondent Corporation bearing Registration No. TN-21-N1308, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the petitioner and run over both the legs of the petitioner and thus resulting in amputation of both his legs, maiming him forever.

3. The Tribunal relied upon the evidence of the injured and PW-2, Dr. J.R.R. Thiagarajan, quantified the compensation and passed an award for a sum of Rs. 11,86,200/- and the break up details are as under:-

Loss of earning Power & Disability	Rs. 5,83,200/-
Transport to Hospital	Rs. 50,000/-
Extra nourishment	Rs. 75,000/-
Pain and suffering	Rs. 1,00,000/-
Medical expenses	Rs. 50,000/-
Attendant charges	Rs. 50,000/-
Damage to clothes	Rs. 3,000/-
Loss of amenities	Rs. 75,000/-
Mental agony	Rs. 2,00,000/-
Total	Rs. 11,86,200/-

4. The claimant challenged the award before this Court in C.M.A. No. 49 of 2015 and the respondent took the stand that the award passed by the Tribunal is an ex-parte award and that the respondent could not file the counter on 08.05.2014 and prayed for remand of the matter for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the Corporation to contest the matter on merits.

4.1. In order to avoid further delay, this Court permitted the Corporation to file the objections before this Court after setting aside the ex-parte order.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as the respondent submitted that if the claim petition is decided by this Court itself, both of them would not raise the objection of lapse of one right of appeal (to this Court) and thereafter, this Court examined the claimant, the Doctor as well as the Driver of the Corporation and recorded their evidence. The evidence of the Driver reveals that he was paid a sum of Rs. 200/- in addition to his normal remuneration of Rs. 550/- for driving another 200 k.m. after his mandatory 550 k.m. trip. A paltry two hundred rupees had caused the loss of two legs of the claimant with them, his hopes, promises, plans, dreams and future, at whisker of a second in which the driver rammed over the claimant. With his two legs gone are his security, dignity and right to decent life at one go. Moreover, a middle aged man, who is destined to be a beast of burden and volunteered to be a walking stick to his aged mother, nonagenarian ironically at flash of fate, stands immobile with either of his legs severed and looking forward some other shoulder to lean over.

6. In the claim petition, the claimant has claimed a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- as compensation.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is, the claimant is not entitled to compensation on two grounds. Firstly, it is an invited accident by the injured himself and hence the respondent is not liable to pay compensation. It is also contended that the agricultural land in which, the claimant doing farming remains intact and therefore there is no economic loss. It is pointed out that the injured him