ORDER : This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed by the appellant/claimant being aggrieved by the award dated 31.03.2017 passed in Claim Case No.475/2015 by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC) Bilaspur (CG). 2. The appellant/claimant filed application under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.15,20,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in an accident that took place on 18.04.2015 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle car bearing registration No. CG 12-R-3368 driven by the respondent No.1-driver owned by respondent No.2/owner and insured with the respondent No.3/Insurance Company. 3. As per the claim application, on the date of accident ie. 18.04.2015, when the appellant/claimant along with his friend was crossing the road near the liquor brewery, Beltara bus stand, the offending vehicle coming from opposite direction hit the appellant/claimant as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries internally and externally on all over the body. There was excessive bleeding from his head and he fell unconscious, people nearby the vicinity took him to Govt. hospital, Ratanpur and looking to his serious condition, he was shifted to CIMS Hospital from where he was advised to be shifted to another hospital and then was taken to Gaurav Hospital, Bilaspur where he remained admitted from 18.04.2015 to 06.05.2015. Appellant has stated that he remained unconscious for about 45 days and due to the injures sustained by him on his head, he is unable to stand, walk or talk as well as he is unable to read and has lost the power to think and understand. 4. The respondent No.1 & 2/driver and owner filed written statement and denied the averments of the claim application. The offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No.3/Insurance Company and was driven by the driver with valid and effective driving license and the respondent No.3/Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. 5. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company also filed its written statement and denied the claim application. It was pleaded that the contributory negligence by the appellant/claimant cannot be ruled out. The driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license. Hence, the Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and prays for its exoneration. 6. 5. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company also filed its written statement and denied the claim application. It was pleaded that the contributory negligence by the appellant/claimant cannot be ruled out. The driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license. Hence, the Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and prays for its exoneration. 6. On the basis of the above broad pleadings, the learned tribunal has framed issues with regard to rash and negligent driving, permanent disablement, violation of the insurance policy and the amount of compensation which were decided in favour of the appellant/claimant. Learned Tribunal found the respondent No.1/driver responsible for the accident as the offending vehicle was driven by him rashly and negligently on account of which the appellant become permanently disabled. The violation of the insurance policy was said to have been not proved and therefore the Learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,70,241/- as compensation in favour of the appellant/claimant. 7. The issue with regard to violation of the policy and rash and negligent driving are not being challenged by the appellant/claimant and therefore they have attained finality. The question which was before the learned Tribunal is with regard to just compensation to be awarded in favour of the appellant/claimant. 8. At the time of accident, the appellant/claimant was aged about 9 years. Ravi Das (AW-1) father of the appellant (next friend) in his affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 has stated that due to the accident, the appellant/claimant suffered internal and external injuries on his head, face, mouth and other parts of his body including elbow, waist back, right leg. He has also stated that there was excessive bleeding from the head and was immediately rushed to the Govt. Hospital, Ratanpur by the people of the nearby vicinity in unconscious condition and looking to his serious condition, he was referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur from where he was shifted to Gaurav Hospital, Bilaspur and was hospitalized from 18.04.2015 to 06.05.2015. He has further deposed that his son (appellant) has suffered grievous and permanent injuries as a result of which he has lost his mental capacity to think and can’t even speak properly, there is always pain in the head and back due to which he is unable to walk. He has further deposed that his son (appellant) has suffered grievous and permanent injuries as a result of which he has lost his mental capacity to think and can’t even speak properly, there is always pain in the head and back due to which he is unable to walk. He has further stated that the appellant/claimant is suffering hardship and the family members carry him in the lap to school and therefore, the appellant has claimed total compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,20,000/-. He has stated that at the time of accident, he was studying in Class 3. He has exhibited the criminal papers from Ex.A-1 to A-9 and the documents with regard to the medical treatment of the appellant/claimant from Ex.A-10 to A-62 and also exhibited the permanent disability certificate Ex.A-63 given by the District Medical Board, Bilaspur and MRI report Ex.A-64. The certificate for future treatment given by Gaurav Hospital, Bilaspur is Ex.A-65. He has also exhibited the medical bills for nutritional diet given during treatment from Ex.A-66 toA-71 and A-72 to A-95. In cross- examination, nothing incriminating has been brought on record. 9. Sandeep Jaiswal (AW-2) was examined to prove the accident. He has deposed in his affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC that the appellant/claimant sustained grievous and fatal injuries. Dr.S.S.Bajpai (AW-3) was examined on behalf of the appellant/claimant. He has deposed that the appellant was physically and mentally examined by him and opined that he was weak and that the left lower and upper limb were disabled upto 50% and he is mentally retarded up to 40%. He has further opined that there is possibility of his recuperation with age in future though no definite opinion can be given. He has proved the disablement certificate Ex.A-63 and his signatures from A to A and B to B. In cross-examination, he has stated that he has not treated the appellant/claimant, he has only examined him. He has stated that the appellant/claimant was present before him and after examining him physically and mentally and his ability to walk, issued the certificate of disablement. He has stated that he cannot say as to whether the appellant was disabled from birth. He has stated that the appellant/claimant was present before him and after examining him physically and mentally and his ability to walk, issued the certificate of disablement. He has stated that he cannot say as to whether the appellant was disabled from birth. He has stated that the family members of the appellant/claimant informed that the appellant had sustained injury on his head and he cannot tell as to how he sustained injuries on the head and Ex.A-63 is not the disablement certificate from the medical board. He has stated that it is true to say that there is possibility of improvement in physical and mental development of the child/appellant but no definite opinion could be given. He has stated that there is possibility of 50% improvement in future which will depend upon exercise done by the appellant/claimant. No evidence was led by the respondents. 10. Perusal of Ex.A-63 which is a disablement certificate of appellant/claimant indicating that his locomotive disability on left lower and upper limbs is 50% and he is mentally retarded to 40%. It has also been mentioned that there is a possibility of improvement with age but no definite opinion could be given. MRI report Ex.A-64 which is reproduced herein below: “MRI BRAIN (Screening only) MRI-60-061 CLINICAL DATA: T2W-Axial Flair-Coronal Diff-Axial The cereberal white and grey matter shows normal configurational pattern and signal intensities in Diff and T2 weighed scans. The basal ganglia, thalami, brain stem and cerebellum show normal MR morphology and signal intensities. Hypointense area in T2W FFE images is seen in left thalamus & corpus callosum (splenium) The ventricular system is not dilated and there is no evidence of any midline shift. The CSF in the cerebral sulci and the intra cranial cristerna spaces show no abnormality The soft tissue structures of the face and orbit are essentially normal. Impression : Hypointense area in T2W FFE images is seen in left thalamus & corpus callosum (splenium)-? Post trauma. Sd/- Dr. Mukul Shrivastava Sr. Consultant Ex. A-65 is a certificate given by the Gaurav Hospital indicating that the appellant/claimant has suffered head injury and the estimated expenses in his treatment will be around Rs. 2,00,000/-. 11. The issue No.2 with regard to permanent disablement being caused to the appellant is positive and the compensation has been awarded in the following manner. Rs. 1,80,000/- for loss of earning capacity, Rs. 2,00,000/-. 11. The issue No.2 with regard to permanent disablement being caused to the appellant is positive and the compensation has been awarded in the following manner. Rs. 1,80,000/- for loss of earning capacity, Rs. 50,000/- for loss of pain and suffering, Rs. 20,000/- for non pecuniary loss under the loss of amenities, Rs.1,20,241/– for medical treatment and thus, awarded total compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,70,241/- to the appellant/claimant. 12. Learned Tribunal has assessed the yearly income of the appellant/claimant to Rs. 30,000/- relying upon the judgment of Kishan Gopal & Others Vs. Lala & Others reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 30,000/- per annum and adopted a multiplier of 15 and awarded the compensation. 13. From the evidence available on record, it is established that the appellant/claimant had suffered permanent disablement on the left lower and upper limb to the tune of 50% and mentally retardness to the tune of 40%.The appellant/claimant was aged about 9 years at the time of incident and his whole life is ahead of him. He was studying in class 3 and father of the appellant/claimant has categorically stated that he used to carry him in his lap to drop him to school. From the medical evidence, it can safely be inferred that the appellant/claimant could not do his daily course on his own and needs assistance. Of course there is no income of the appellant/claimant, had he not sustained injuries in the accident, he would have led a normal life and might have led a wholesome life with dignity by obtaining a good job. In the case of Kishan Gopal (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court took the notional income of the deceased to Rs. 30,000/- per annum and the appellant in that case deceased boy aged about 10 years was assisting in his father’s agricultural work. 14. In the case in hand, the accident occurred on 18.04.2015 therefore the notional income, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence and relevant material available on record, has been taken to Rs. 30,000/- by the learned Tribunal which appears to be on the lower side. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , it has been held that: “19. 30,000/- by the learned Tribunal which appears to be on the lower side. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , it has been held that: “19. We may now summarize the principles discussed above: (I) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability). (iii) the doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined hims subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors. XXX XXXX XXXX 27. “in a case of injured claimant with disability, what is calculated is the future loss of earning of the claimant, payable to the claimant (as contrasted from loss of dependency calculated in a fatal accident, where the dependent family members of the deceased are the claimants). Therefore there is no need to deduct one-third or any other percentage from out of the income, towards the personal and living expenses.” 15. Apart from the above, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Singh Vs. Nishant Sharma and Another, (2015) 14 SCC 353 , has observed as under : 14. “Under conventional heads, following the decision of Kumaresh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 12 SCC 488 , we award Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded for pain and suffering since the appellant cannot walk, sit, squat or run freely and he is not able to live a normal life, Rs. “Under conventional heads, following the decision of Kumaresh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 12 SCC 488 , we award Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded for pain and suffering since the appellant cannot walk, sit, squat or run freely and he is not able to live a normal life, Rs. 1,00,000/-for medical expenses for whole life since he has to survive with artificial limb which might require replacement from time to time. Considering the appellant’s drastically reduced chances of mobility, deprivation from attending social functions, further Rs. 3,00,000/- awarded for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life including loss of marital prospects and marital happiness, adding Rs. 50,000/- for conveyance charges and cost of attendant in his old age and Rs. 50,000/- for food and nourishment. Hence, in total, a sum of Rs. 16,28,840/- is awarded as compensation in favour of the appellant.” 16. In the case of Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and Another, (2023) 3 SCC 439 , it has been held in para 113 as under: “113. Before we close this matter, it needs to be underlined, as observed in Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar (2022) 13 SCC 790: 2020 SCC Online SC 752 that courts should be mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim. The attendant trauma of the victim’s having to live in a world entirely different from the one she or he is born into, as an invalid and with degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete personal choice or autonomy, should forever be in the Judge’s mind, whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. Severe limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the dignity (which is now recognized as an intrinsic component of the right to life under Article 21) of the individual, thus depriving the person of the essence of the right to a wholesome life which she or he had lived, hitherto. From the world of the able bodies, the victim is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances, there is resultant affront to the injured victim. 17. From the cumulative evidence brought on record, including the statement of the appellant/claimant and the doctor (Dr. From the world of the able bodies, the victim is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances, there is resultant affront to the injured victim. 17. From the cumulative evidence brought on record, including the statement of the appellant/claimant and the doctor (Dr. S.S.Bajpai AW-3), the assessment of functional disability to the tune of 40% by the learned Tribunal does not appear to be correct and proper looking to the evidence on record. However, looking to the date of accident and the prevailing minimum wages, the income which the appellant/claimant could have earned in future had he not suffered permanent disability, this Court can safely infer the monthly income of the appellant/claimant to Rs. 6,000/- per month and since he was a child aged about 9 years at the time of accident, 40% future prospect is also added which comes to Rs. 2400/- so the total monthly income comes to Rs. 8400/- and the yearly income would come to Rs. 1,00,800/-. The age of the father of the appellant is 38 years and since the doctor has stated that no definite opinion can be given but there is a possibility of improvement of 50% with age in future and by exercise. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on record and in the light of the above judgments, the loss of earning capacity can safely be assessed at 70% hence, the loss of yearly income would be Rs. 70,560/- (Rs. 1,00,800 x 70%). After applying multiplier of 15 looking to the age of the parents of the appellant/claimant, it would come to Rs. 10,58,400/-. In addition to this, Rs.3,00,000/- for loss of amenities, prospect of marriage, enjoyment of life and Rs. 1,00,000/- as future treatment, Rs. 50,000/- for attendant and nutritional diet and Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony is awarded and Rs. 1,20,241/- awarded on account of treatment is maintained. The total amount would come to Rs. 16,78,641/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,70,421/- and after deducting the same, enhanced compensation would come to Rs. 13,08,220/-. 18. This enhanced compensation will carry interest @ 6% from the date of claim application till its realization which is to be paid within 60 days by the respondent No.3/Insurance Company. 16,78,641/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,70,421/- and after deducting the same, enhanced compensation would come to Rs. 13,08,220/-. 18. This enhanced compensation will carry interest @ 6% from the date of claim application till its realization which is to be paid within 60 days by the respondent No.3/Insurance Company. On such deposit made, 90% shall be invested in the name of appellant/claimant in a fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank till he attains majority and the remaining amount shall be paid to him by bank transaction Account payee Cheque. Appellant/claimant shall be entitled to receive the interest accrued on it. 19. Appeal is thus allowed in part.