P. VELMURUAN, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Award dated 19.01.2024 made in MCOP.No.404 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Karur.

2. In an accident which occurred on 14.02.2020, the 1st respondent/claimant sustained crush injury over left leg, injuries in the right wrist, left pelvic region and all over the body. Immediately after the accident, she took first aid in Amaravathi Hospital, Karur and later she was referred to Velammal Hospital, Madurai, for further treatment, where she was admitted as inpatient between 14.02.2020 and 23.03.2020 for 39 days. In the course of treatment, due to the crush injury, the claimant-s left leg was amputated above knee. Seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident, the respondent/claimant claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. The appellant who is the insurer of the offending vehicle owned by the 2nd respondent herein, filed counter disputing the averments in the claim petition and pleaded contributory negligence. The appellant has also contended that the 2nd respondent had not possessed valid driving licence at the time of accident and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. Before the Tribunal, the injured claimant examined herself as PW1 and 9 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9. On the side of the appellant, no oral and documentary evidence was let in. The disbility certificate of the claimant was marked as Ex.C1. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent and consequently directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.22,11,200/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the award, the appellant insurance company has filed this appeal questioning the quantum of compensation.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the award of Rs.2,32,050/- towards future prospects is without any basis and the award of Rs.3,00,350/- for fixing artificial limb and Rs.2,25,000/- towards maintenance of artificial limb is excessive. He would further contend that the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each under the heads, pain and suffering, loss of amenities and disability & disfigurement without any evidence and therefore, the same are liable to be set aside.

4. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimant would contend that the claimant has sustained 85% disability due to amputation of her left leg above knee and an artificial limb is fixed. She is an agricultural coolie and due to amputation, she has completely lost her earning capacity and the Tribunal considering the plight of the injured claimant and the overall evidence especially medical evidence, has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.22,11,200/- with 7.5% interest per annum which does not require any interference by this Court.

5. Heard both sides and perused the records.

6. The accident is not disputed and the liability is also not questioned. Even on the quantum, the appellant has disputed the award granted under the heads, loss of future prospects, fixation of artificial limb, maintenance of artificial limb, pain and suffering, loss of amenities and disability & disfigurement on the ground that the award under those heads are without any basis and therefore, the same are liable to be set aside.

7. Though the appellant has questioned the award granted under those heads, perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the Tribunal has followed the judgment of the Hon-ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain Regional Manager, U.P State Road Transport Corporation (Civil Appeal Nos. 9070-9071 of 2022, dated 09.12.2022), and awarded compensation under those heads. In the said judgment, the Apex Court while dealing with similar case of this nature i.e., amputation and fixation of artificial limb and its maintenance, has issued certain directives to Courts in cases of permanent disability caused to the claimants. For better appreciation, the relevant passage of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:

COMPENSATION FOR THE PURCHASE AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PROSTHETIC LEG

22. The High Court has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,20,000/- for the prosthetic limb and Rs.50,000/- towards repair and maintenance of the same. The Appellant submits that the cost of the prosthetic limb itself is Rs. 2,60,000/- and the life of the prosthetic limb is only 5-6 years. The prosthetic limb also requires repair and maintenance after every 6 months to 1 year, and each repair costs between Rs.15,000 to Rs.20,000/-. This would mean that the prosthetic limb would last the Appellant for only 15 years under the current compensation. The Appellant at the time of the accident was aged 37 years and has a full life ahead. It has been clearly stated by this
Court in the case of Anant Son of Sidheshwar Dukre (Supra) that the purpose of fair compensation is to restore the injured to the position he was in prior to the accident as best as possible. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is being extracted herein:

–In cases of motor accidents leading to injuries and disablements, it is a well settled principle that a person must not only be compensated for his physical injury, but also for the non-pecuniary losses which he has suffered due to the injury. The Claimant is entitled to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life and enjoy those things and amenities which he would have enjoyed, but for the injuries. The purpose of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is to fully and adequately restore the aggrieved to the position prior to the accident.–

23. As per the current compensation given for the prosthetic limb and its maintenance, it would last the Appellant for only 15 years, even if we were to assume that the limb would not need to be replaced after a few years. The Appellant was only 37 years at the time of the accident, and it would be reasonable to assume that he would live till he is 70 years old if not more. We are of the opinion that the Appellant must be compensated so that he is able to purchase three prosthetic limbs in his lifetime and is able to maintain the same at least till he has reached 70 years of age. For the Prosthetic limbs alone, the Appellant is to be awarded compensation of Rs. 7,80,000 and for maintenance of the same he is to be awarded an additional Rs. 5,00,000/-.

27. We are of the opinion that while awarding compensation in cases of permanent disability caused to claimants, the courts must look at the case in totality, and must consider the socio-economic background of the claimants. The Appellant herein comes from an economically weaker section of the society.

28. It is almost universally seen that persons from marginalized backgrounds often face an additional layer of discrimination due to bodily disabilities. This is because persons from marginalized sections of the society already face severe discrimination due to a lack of social capital, and a new disability more often than not compounds to such discrimination. In such circumstances, to preserve the essence of justice, it becomes the duty of the Court to at the very least restore the claimant as best as possible to the position he was in before the occurrence of the disability, and to do so must award compensation in a liberal manner.

29. While no material compensation can completely negate the trauma and suffering that the injured and his family faces, the law only knows the language of monetary compensation in such cases. It then becomes to duty of the court to translate the provisions of monetary compensation into a fabrication that helps the injured and his family in coping with their loss.

30. On the basis of the abovementioned facts and analysis, this Court is of the opinion that the just compensation to be awarded to the
claimant/appellant under different heads ought to be as under :-

Heads of Compensation Amount (Rs.)
Cost Of Artificial limb and its Maintenance 12,80,000/−
Loss of earning capacity due to functional disability 11,34,000/−
Future Prospects 7,61,668/−
Medical Expenses 57,650/−
Attendant Charges 11,802/−
Conveyance 10,000/−
Special Diet 15,000/−
Pain and Suffering 2,00,000/−
Loss of Amenities of Life 2,00,000/−
Loss due to Disability and Disfigurement 2,00,000/−
Total Compensation 38,70,120/−

8. In the case on hand, the injured was aged 49 years at the time of accident and was an agricultural coolie. In the absence of proof for the income, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income of the claimant at Rs.7,000/-. The claimant has sustained 85% disability as per Ex.C1-disability certificate. Applying 13 multiplier, the Tribunal has awarded the loss of income due to 85% disability at Rs.9,28,200/- (Rs.84,000 x 13 x 85/100). As far as future prospects is concerned, though the Apex Court in the abovesaid case has awarded Rs.7,61,668/-, in this case, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.2,32,050/- (25% of the disability compensation of Rs.9,28,200/-) and it cannot be said to be excessive. As regards fixation of artificial limb, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,00,352/- as per Ex.P9 which is a quotation issued by D-Phoenix Prosthetic & Orthotics Pvt. Ltd. Though the appellant has contended that the said award amount is excessive, no evidence was let in to disprove the same and therefore, the said amount is confirmed. Following the above judgment of the Apex Court, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,25,000/- towards maintenance of artificial limb. Needless to say, artificial limb requires repair and maintenance for every 6 months to 1 year and each repair costs would be at least Rs.15,000/- and further, the life of the artificial limb is also 5 to 6 years only. The injured claimant is aged 49 years and for every 6 years, she has to replace the artificial limb till her life time. Therefore, the award for maintenance of artificial limb cannot be said to be excessive. The award of Rs.1,00,000/- each granted towards pain and suffering, loss of amenties and disability & disfigurement are in line with the judgment of the Apex Court in Mohd. Sabeer-s case (supra). The claimant has underwent a surgery for amputation of her left leg and was inpatient for 39 days. Certainly, she would have experienced severe pain and sufferings which cannot be measured in terms of money. The amputation and fixation of artificial leg has completely taken away the amenites of her normal life. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award of Rs.1,00,000/- each granted for pain and suffering, loss of amenties and disability & disfigurement.

9. In the result, the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount with interest and costs to the credit of the claim petition within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not deposited earlier. On such deposit, the respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal.

10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.