B. KOTHANDAPANIversusTAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.

                     [2011) 6 S.C.R. 791

                     B. KOTHANDAPANI                             A
                              v.
  1AMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.
         (Civil Appeal Nos. 4330-4331 of 2011)
                        MAY 12, 2011
                                                                 B
      [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

      Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:

      Compensation towards "permanent disability" - In a         c
 motor vehicle accident claimant-Foreman suffered partial loss
 of eye-sight and amputation of right hand finger - HELD:
 Tribunal rightly awarded compensation under the head
 "permanent disability" besides awarding compensation for
 loss of earning capacity.                                       o
        The appellant, met with a motor vehicle accident as
  a result of which, besides other injuries, he suffered
  disability due to partial loss of eye-sight and amputation
  of middle finger of his right hand. He was a Foreman in a
  company and his monthly salary after deductions was Rs         E
  3,295.281- . The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed
  the permanent disability to the extent of 85% and taking
  note of the age and vocation of the claimant, allowed him
  a compensation of Rs.5,05,053.45, which included
  Rs.1,50,000/· towards permanent disability. On appeal, the     F
  t-1igh Court set aside the award of Rs.1,50,000/- granted
  under the head of "permanent disability" holding that the
  claimant had been awarded a sum of Rs. 3 lakh towards
- the loss of earning capacity. It awarded a further sum of
  Rs.50,0001· In addition to the amount awarded by the           G
  Tribunal.
    In the Instant appeals flied by the claimant, the only
 question for consideration before the Court was: Whether
                             791                                 H
    792      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 6 S.C.R.

A the appellant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-
  towards "permanent disability" in addition to the amount
  awarded under the head "loss of earning capacity"?

          Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
B        HELD: 1.1. It is true that the compensation for loss
    of earning power/capacity has to be determined based
    on various aspects including permanent injury/disability.
    At the same time, it cannot be construed that
    compensation cannot be granted for permanent disability
C   of any nature. It cannot be disputed that apart from the
    fact that the permanent disability affects the earning
    capacity of the person concerned, undoubtedly, one has
    to forego other personal comforts and even for normal
    avocation they have to depend on others. In the case on
D   hand, two doctors had explained the nature of injuries,
    treatment received and the disability suffered due to
    partial loss of eye-sight and amputation of middle finger
    in the right hand. At the time of accident, the claimant was
    working as a Foreman. Taking note of his nature of work,
E   the partial loss of the eye sight and the loss of middle
    finger of the right hand not only affects his earning
    capacity but also affects normal avocation and day-to-
    day work. In such circumstances, the Tribunal was fully
    justified in granting a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards
F   permanent disability.[para 12] [798-D-H; 799-A]

          Ramesh Chandra vs. Randhir Singh & Ors. 1990 (3)
    SCR 1 = (1990) 3 sec 723 - relied on.
      1.2. Considering the evidence of injured-claimant as
G PW-1 and two doctors as PWs. 2 and 3 coupled with the
  Disability Certificates and medical documents, the High
  Court was not justified in disallowing a sum of
  Rs.1,00,000/- from the total compensation of
  Rs.5,05,053.45 awarded by the Tribunal. The Corporation
H
B. KOTHANDAPANI v. TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT 793
             CORPORATION LTD.

is liable to pay Rs. 5,05,053.45 with interest as awarded         A
by the Tribunal.[para
         ... :
           '
                       13] [799-B-C]
    Cho/an Roadways Corporation Ltd. vs. Ahmed Thambi
and Others, 2006 (4) CTC 433 - cited.

                      Case Law Reference:                         B

    2006 (4)   ere 433        cited                 para 10
    1990 ( 3 ) SCR 1          relied on             para 11

    CIVIL AP.PELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.             C
4330-4331 of 2011.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 13.12.2006 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in C.M.A. No. 103 & 122 of
2011.
                                                                  D
    Vipin Nair, P.B. Suresh, Vivek Sharma (for Temple Law
Firm) for the Appellant.
    T. Harish Kumar for the Respondent.
                                                                  E
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted. ·

     2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and
final order dated 13.12.2006 passed by the High Court of          F
Judicature at·Madras in C.M.A. Nos. 103 and 122 of 2001 in
and by which the High Court modified the award of the Tribunal,
i.e., from Rs. 5,05,053.45/- to Rs.4,05,053.45/- as
compensation payable to the appellant-claimant.
    3. Brief facts:                                               G

    (a) The appellant-claimant sustained grievous injuries in a
motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 21.05.1998 for which
he made a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
                                                                  H
    794     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 6 S.C.R.

A Chennai (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in 0.P. No.
  3868of1998 for a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs as compensation. The
  Tribunal, after finding that the accident was caused due to the
  negligence of the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport
  Corporation (Villupuram Division-Ill), Kancheepuram
B (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"), by order dated
  20.12.2000, quantified the compensation and passed an award
  for Rs.5,05,053.45.

        (b) Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the Corporation
  filed C.M.A. No. 103 of 2001 before the High Court of Madras
C challenging the quantum of compensation. The appelfant-
  claimant also filed C.M.A. No. 122 of 2001 before the High
  Court for the enhancement of the compensation amount.
  Inasmuch as both the appeals arose from the same award of
  the Tribunal, the High Court heard and decided the appeals
D together and passed a common order on 13.12.2006 reducing
  the compensation to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. In other words,
  by the said order, the High Court allowed the appeal of the
  Corporation to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- and dismissed the
  appeal of the claimant for enhancement of the compensation.
E
       (c) Questioning the judgment and final order of the High
  Court, the claimant has filed the above appeals by way of
  special leave petitions before this Court praying for
  enhancement of compensation to the extent awarded by the
F Tribunal.
         4. Heard Mr. Vipin Nair, learned counsel for the appelfant-
    cfaimant and Mr. T. Harish Kumar, learned counsel for the
    respondent-Corporation.
G       5. The only point for consideration in these appeals is
  whether the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-
  towards "permanent disability" in addition to the amount
  awarded under the head "loss of earning capacity"? Inasmuch
  as the issue is confined only to the quantum of compensation,
H it is not necessary to traverse the factual details relating to the
B. KOTHANDAPANI v. TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT 795
      CORPORATION LTD. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
accident. Even otherwise, the claimant alone has filed the A
present appeals and the Corporation has not challenged the
findings relating to negligence, it is not necessary to go into the
conclusion arrived at on the negligence aspect holding that the
driver alone was responsible for the accident. Even, with regard
to the quantum of compensation, except reduction of Rs. B
1,00,000/- which was awarded by the Tribunal for permanent
disability, it is· not necessary to go into the quantum of
compensation under various heads and the ultimate order of
the Tribunal and the High Court.

      6. The appellant-claimant, in his evidence as PW-1,             C
deposed that he had sustained injury on the center finger of the
right hand, his knee joint on the right leg had been dislocated,
injury on the right cheek and eyes, that he cannot see with his
left eye, his right foot had been injured and his right ankle joint
dislocated. He further explained that after the accident, he was      D
immediately taken to the Government Hospital at Chengalpet
and received the First Aid and later he had been admitted in
the Govt. Stanley Hospital and was under treatment for 25 days
as inpatient. The Discharge Summary issued therein has been
marked as Ex. P-1. He further narrated that he had undergone          E
Physiotherapy after 25 days which is evident from Ex. P-2. He
had also undergone skin surgery at the Stanley Hospital and
the certificate relating to the same has been marked as Ex.P-
3. Even after discharge from the Stanley Hospital, he was not
fully recovered and he had been admitted in Malar Hospital at         F
Adayar and received treatment for two days. The Discharge
Summary has been marked as Ex.P-4. According to the
appellant-claimant, the middle finger of his right hand had been
amputated at the Malar Hospital, Adayar. The prescription
issued at the Malar Hospital has been marked as Ex. P-5.              G
From his evidence, it is seen that during the time of the accident,
he was working as a Foreman in Mis Armstrong Hydraulics
Limited and after the accident he is unable to do any work as
he cannot bend the fingers of his right hand and using his left
                                                                      H
    796       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2011] 6 S.C.R.


A hand for eating and there is pain in his right leg and he cannot
  travel in a two wheeler or in a transport bus.

          7. Dr. R. Rajappa was examined as PW-2. In his evidence,
  he deposed that the appellant-claimant was injured in the
8 accident  said to have been occurred on 21.05.1998 and he had
  received treatment as an inpatient at the hospital at Chengalpet,
  later he had been admitted as an inpatient at the Govt. Stanley
  Hospital. He had seen a lengthy scar on his right eye and his
  right eyebrow had been found to be fallen and the retina of the
C eye was found to be large and that it had lost the shrinking
  capacity and the nerves of the eye had been affected and there
  was no circulation of blood and he lost his eye sight by about
  3 meters. On examination and perusing the medical documents
  about his treatment, he concluded 30% of the disability had
  been caused due to the injury on the right eye and issued a
D Disability Certificate which he..> been marked as Ex. P-9.

        8. Dr. J.R.R. Thiagarajan was also examined as PW-3. In
  his evidence, he deposed tliat the right hand of the appellant
  had been injured due to the said accident and his middle finger
E on the right hand had been amputated and a plate had been
  placed on the fore finger towards the dislocation of the bone.
  He also explained that he had undergone treatment towards
  the injury on the right forehand and on the right cheek and that
  the plate is still there on the right fore finger due to which he
F cannot bend the fore finger and other fingers properly and it is
  difficult for him to eat and there was swelling on the palm of
  his right hand and issued a Disability Certificate which has been
  marked as Ex. P~10. The Certificate issued by the employer
  Ex. P-8 shows that at the time of the accident, the appellant
G was working as a Grade-Ill worker in the firm M/s Armstrong
  Hydraulics Ltd. and he was getting a salary of Rs.3,295.28/-
  after deductions.

       9. The Disability Certificates, Exs.P-9 & P-10, issued by
  the two doctors, show that the appellant had disability to the
H extent of 90%. The Tribunal, after considering the fact that the
B. KOTHANDAPANI v. TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT 797
      CORPORATION LTD. fP. SATHASIVAM, J.]

assessment of disability may vary to the extent of 5%, concluded   A
that the appellant had sustained permanent disability to the
extent of 85% and taking note of his age and avocation,
awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the same ..

    10. The High Court, relying on its own Full Bench decision
                                                                   8
in Cho/an Roadways Corporation Ltd. vs. Ahmed Thambi and
Others, 2006 (4) CTC 433, after finding that since the claimant
had been awarded a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs towards the loss of
earning capacity set aside the award of Rs. 1,50,000/- granted
under the head "permanent disability" and awarded a further        C
sum of Rs.50,000/- in addition to the amount awarded by the
Tribunal.                              ·

     11. In Ramesh Chandra vs. Randhir Singh & Ors. (1990)
3 sec 723 while considering award of compensation for
permanent disability (right foot amputated) caused by the          D
accident under Section 1108 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
which is similar to Section 168(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, this Court upheld the award of compensation under
separate head of pain, suffering and.loss of enjoyment of life,
apart from the· head of loss of earnings. The discussion and       E
ultimate conclusion are relevant which reads as under:-

    "7. With regard to ground XIX covering the question that
    the sum awarded for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment
    of life etc. termed as general damages should be taken
    to be covered by damages granted for loss of earnings is       F
    concerned that too is misplaced and without any basis. The
    pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life which is a
    resultant and permanent fact occasioned by the nature of
    injuries received by the claimant and the ordeal he had to
    undergo. If money be any solace, the grant of Rs 20,000        G
    to the claimant represents that solace. Money solace is the
    answer discovered by the Law of Torts. No substitute has
    yet been found to replace the element of money. This, on
    the face of it appeals to us as a distinct head, quite apart
    from the inability to earn livelihood on the basis of          H
-
        798       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 6 S.C.R.

    A         incapacity or disability which is quite different. The
              incapacity or disability to earn a livelihood would have to
              be viewed not only in praesenti but in futuro on reasonable
              expectancies and taking into account deprival of earnings
              of a conceivable period. This head being totally different
    B         cannot in our view overlap the grant of compensation under
              the head of pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.
              One head relates to the impairment of person's capacity
              to earn, the other relates to the pain and suffering and loss
              of enjoyment of life by the person himself. For these
    c         reasons, we are of the considered view that the contentions
              raised by the truck owner appellant in that behalf must be
              negatived and we hereby negative them."
            12. It is true that the compensation for loss of earning
      power/capacity has to be determined based on various aspects
    D including permanent injury/disability. At the same time, it cannot
      be construed that compensation cannot be granted for
      permanent disability of any nature. For example, take the case
      of a non-earning member of a family who has been injured in
      an accident and sustained permanent disability due to
    E amputation of leg or hand, it cannot be construed that no
      amount needs to be granted for permanent disability. It cannot
      be disputed that apart from the fact that the permanent
      disability affects the earning capacity of the person concerned,
      undoubtedly, one has to forego other personal comforts and
    F even for normal avocation they have to depend on others. In
      the case on hand, two doctors had explained the nature of
      injuries, treatment received and the disability suffered due to
      partial loss of eye-sight and amputation of middle finger in the
      right hand and we have already adverted to the avocation,
    G namely, at the time of accident, he was working as Foreman
      in Mis Armstrong Hydraulics Ltd. Taking note of his nature of
      work, partial loss in the eye sight, loss of middle finger of the
      right hand, it not only affects his earning capacity but also affects
      normal avocation and day-to-day work. In such circumstance,
    H
B. KOTHANDAPANI v. TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT 799
      CORPORATION LTD. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
we are of the view that the Tribunal was fully justified in granting   A
a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards permanent disability.

     13. Considering the evidence of injured-claimant as PW-
1 and two doctors as PWs. 2 & 3 coupled with the Disability
Certificates and medical documents, we conclude that the High 8
Court was not justified in disallowing a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
from the total compensation of Rs.5,05,053.45 awarded by the
Tribunal. We agree with the contention raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant-claimant and restore the award of the
Tribunal. In other words, the Corporation is liable to pay Rs.
5,05,053.45 with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. If the said C
amount has not been deposited so far, the Corporation is
directed to deposit the same in the Tribunal within two months
from the date of the receipt of this order and if any amount had
already been deposited/paid to the claimant, the same shall be
adjusted. On such a deposit being made, the appellant-claimant D
is permitted to withdraw the same. The appeals are allowed
to the extent mentioned above. There shall be no order as to
costs.

R.P.                                      Appeals partly allowed.      E