Permanent disability requires compensation reflecting not only past earnings but also future prospects and quality of life, acknowledging the emotional suffering of the claimant.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is preferred by the injured claimant as she was aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 31/08/2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CMA No. 2131 of 2008 even though it has enhanced the compensation from Rs.6,46,000/- to Rs.18,22,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition under various heads urging various facts and grounds in justification of her claim.

3. The claimant - appellant is aggrieved by the determination of monthly notional income of the deceased by the High Court by taking a meager sum of Rs.6,000/- instead of Rs.18,000/- per month as she is a student studying in the 11th Standard holding first rank in her school. She had an excellent career ahead of her but for the accident in which she has sustained grievous injuries and has become a permanently disabled. Both the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Poonamallee (for short “the Tribunal”) as well as the High Court of Judicature at Madras failed to take into consideration all the relevant legal aspects of the matter namely, having arrived at the conclusion that on account of permanent total disablement suffered by the claimant - appellant on account of injuries sustained in the accident her future loss of income should have been assessed taking into consideration, her age at the time of accident which was 16 and that she is a brilliant student and could have acquired professional degree and procured a well paid job either in public or private sector thereby at least she would have earned a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month. Also, the future prospects of revision of wages, dearness allowance, increments and promotional benefits could have been earned by her. However, because of the accident caused by rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle of the owner - respondent she has been deprived of her potential income to eke out a comfortable livelihood as she has become permanently disabled, this legal and factual aspect has not been taken into consideration both by the Tribunal and the High Court. Therefore, she placed reliance upon the law laid down by this Court in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, 2012 KHC 4238 : 2012 (6) SCC 421 : 2012 (2) KLT SN 94 : AIR 2012 SC 2185 , having regard to her age, 50% of the future prospects should have been added by both the Tribunal and Appellate Court to the notional monthly income that could be fixed for determination of the loss of earning as she had lost her earning capacity as she has become permanently disabled. Therefore, the compensation under this head of loss of earnings is required to be enhanced considerably.

4. The second ground sought to be pressed into operation by the learned counsel on behalf of the claimant - appellant is that the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the High Court on the basis of evidence of Doctor - PW 2, who has examined the appellant, who has made observations regarding the nature of her injuries which will be recorded in the later part of this judgment.

5. Upon examination of the claimant - appellant, the Doctor - PW 2 opined that she is not able to squat, her disability is ascertained at 70%, therefore, she is not able to sit with cross legged comfortably on the floor and the right range of movement (Gionimeter) – fixed flexim deformity of 850 - ligament instability present on account of grievous injuries sustained by her in the unfortunate accident. Therefore, PW 2 has assessed the permanent disability of the claimant - appellant at 70% and to this effect he has issued Ex. P12 - the Disabi