JUDGMENT : Appellant who is the claimant in OP(MV) No.1292/2012 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam [hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’] has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. On 30.10.2011 while the appellant was riding a scooter through the public road, another motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-36/5941 ridden by the 1st respondent hit on the motor cycle ridden by the appellant and in the said accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. Accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of R1, who was the rider-cum-registered owner of the offending motor cycle. R2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Appellant approached the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.37,32,633/-. By the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.11,82,000/-as compensation with interest at 8.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the sum awarded, appellant has come in appeal seeking enhanced compensation. 3. Notice served to respondents. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and gone through the materials placed on record. 4. There is no dispute over the fact that on 30.10.2011 appellant met with a motor vehicle accident while he was riding the scooter bearing registration No.KL-5/Q-6233 through Thalayolaparambu-Vaikom road. It is also not in dispute that the motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-36/5941 owned and ridden by R1 was the offending vehicle. Admittedly, R2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and inadequate; that while awarding compensation, the Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that the appellant, who was then aged only 21 years sustained severe head injuries and had to undergo prolonged treatment and he sustained permanent whole body disability; that while awarding compensation under the head loss of earning capacity, the Tribunal has not considered the loss of future prospects. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal has not awarded a just compensation; that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all heads are on lower side. 6. Let us see whether the appellant is entitled to any enhanced compensation and if so, what is the quantum. 7. Appellant’s case is that he is a Diploma holder in Hotel Management; that he was a trainee in a hotel at Kollam and was earning Rs.6,000/-per month apart from the tip, free food and accommodation. 6. Let us see whether the appellant is entitled to any enhanced compensation and if so, what is the quantum. 7. Appellant’s case is that he is a Diploma holder in Hotel Management; that he was a trainee in a hotel at Kollam and was earning Rs.6,000/-per month apart from the tip, free food and accommodation. He has produced Ext.A19 to prove that he is a Diploma holder in Hotel Management. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that going by the decision of the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], the Tribunal ought to have taken at least Rs.8,000/-per month as notional income instead of Rs.6,000/-. 9. In Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year 2004 as Rs.4,500/-per month. In Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [ (2014) 2 SCC 735 ] the Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed the notional income of a vegetable vendor in the year 2006 at the rate of Rs.6,500/-per month. 10. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the principle that there would be incremental enhancement in the case of even self-employed individuals in the unorganized sector and with respect to an unspecified job of a coolie considering the increase in cost of living and economic advancement over the years, it can be safely assumed that even a coolie worker would be eligible for incremental addition of Rs.500/- in every subsequent year. 11. Bearing in mind the above yardsticks while fixing the notional income, this Court is of the view that the notional income of the appellant/claimant can be fixed at Rs.8,000/-per month for the purpose of determining the compensation payable in the claim petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 12. Appellant’s case is that in the accident he sustained serious head injuries and he had to undergo inpatient treatment continuously for three months and thereafter as outpatient. 13. The medical records would reveal that the appellant sustained serious head injuries in the accident and he had undergone prolonged treatment as inpatient and outpatient. 12. Appellant’s case is that in the accident he sustained serious head injuries and he had to undergo inpatient treatment continuously for three months and thereafter as outpatient. 13. The medical records would reveal that the appellant sustained serious head injuries in the accident and he had undergone prolonged treatment as inpatient and outpatient. The Tribunal has awarded loss of earning for 12 months at the rate of Rs.6,000/-. This Court has fixed the notional income as Rs.8,000/-per month. Accordingly, he is entitled to get an amount of Rs.96,000/-[8000x12] under the head loss of earning for the period of treatment. 14. Under the head extra nourishment, the appellant had claimed Rs.30,000/-and the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/-. In view of the nature of the injuries sustained by him and the prolonged inpatient and outpatient treatment, an additional sum of Rs.10,000/-is awarded under the said head. 15. Under the head damage to clothing and articles, as against the claim of Rs.3,000/-the Tribunal has paid only Rs.500/-, which is on a lower side. Accordingly an additional sum of Rs.1,000/-is awarded on that head. 16. It is in evidence that the claimant had undergone inpatient treatment continuously for three months and thereafter he had undergone outpatient treatment. Accordingly, an additional sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards bystander expenses. 17. Under the head pain and sufferings the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-which is found to be just and reasonable. 18. The evidence on record would reveal that due to the accident the appellant suffered bilateral basi-frontal contusion and multiple skull base fractures with bilateral EDH and he underwent basi-bifrontal craniotomy evacuation of bilateral EDH and placement of bone flap in abdomen and during the course of his treatment, he developed CSF rhinorrhoea and also partially treated meningitis and also underwent cranioplasty. The Medical Board of Medical College Hospital, Kottayam has issued Ext.XI disability certificate stating that total permanent whole body disability is 26%. The medical records produced by the appellant would reveal that the permanent whole body disability assessed amounts to functional disability which adversely affects the earning capacity of the appellant. 19. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.3,36,960/- towards loss of earning capacity taking the multiplier as 18 and loss of earning capacity as 26%. The medical records produced by the appellant would reveal that the permanent whole body disability assessed amounts to functional disability which adversely affects the earning capacity of the appellant. 19. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.3,36,960/- towards loss of earning capacity taking the multiplier as 18 and loss of earning capacity as 26%. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken 40% as loss of future prospects since the permanent disability suffered by the appellant consequent to the injuries sustained in the accident has resulted in reduction of earning capacity of the appellant. 20. In Sidram vs. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. [ (2023) 3 SCC 439 ] (16.11.2022) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows : “It is now a well settled position of law that even in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor-accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects as well. We have come across many orders of different tribunals and unfortunately affirmed by different High Courts, taking the view that the claimant is not entitled to compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. That is not a correct position of law. There is no justification to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading is illogical because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death.” 21. It is in evidence that the appellant suffered serious head injuries and the permanent whole body disability is 26%, which has a bearing on his earning capacity. 22. In Sandeep Khanuja vs. Atul Dande & Another [(2017) 3 SCC 351], Jagadish v. Mohan and Others [ (2018) 4 SCC 571 ] and Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Limited [(2020) SCC Online 601)] the Apex Court has held that the victim, who suffered permanent disability, is entitled to compensation including loss of future prospects. 23. In paragraph 14 of Jagadish [cited supra] the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows : “14. 23. In paragraph 14 of Jagadish [cited supra] the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows : “14. …..But the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to question whether our law values human life. If it does, as it must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the trauma of suffering. Awards of compensation are not law’s doles. In a discourse of rights, they constitute entitlements under law. Our conversations about law must shift from a paternalistic subordination of the individual to an assertion of enforceable rights as intrinsic to human dignity..” 24. There is no merit in the contention of R2/Insurance Company that component of loss of future prospects can be factored while awarding compensation under the head of loss of future earning capacity where disability arises due to the amputation alone. There is no basis for such a proposition. 25. In Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Limited [AIR 2020 SCC 4284] the Apex Court held that while applying the multiplier method future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration. It was a case wherein the injured suffered a permanent disability of 31.1%. 26. The component of ‘loss of future prospects’ also has to be factored in a case of serious injury resulting in permanent disablement, which ultimately has a bearing on the reduced earning capacity. The crucial factor which has to be taken into consideration is to assess as to whether the permanent disability has any adverse effect on the earning capacity of the injured. In the case on hand, the severe head injuries sustained by the appellant has adverse effect on the earning capacity of the appellant. At the time of accident, the appellant/claimant was aged 21 years. Therefore, 40% of his income will have to be factored towards compensation for loss of future prospects. Accordingly, when the said 40% future prospects is added to the monthly income of Rs.8,000/-, his monthly income would be Rs.11,200/-(8000+3200). The multiplier to be applied is 18. Therefore, he is entitled to 11200x12x18x26/100 = 6,28,992/- under the head loss of earning consequent to permanent disability. 27. Accordingly, when the said 40% future prospects is added to the monthly income of Rs.8,000/-, his monthly income would be Rs.11,200/-(8000+3200). The multiplier to be applied is 18. Therefore, he is entitled to 11200x12x18x26/100 = 6,28,992/- under the head loss of earning consequent to permanent disability. 27. Under the head future treatment as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/-made by the claimant the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Regard being had to the serious head injuries sustained by the appellant, this Court finds merit in the contention of the appellant that he requires future treatment. Accordingly, the claim of Rs.1,00,000/-made by the appellant cannot be said to be exorbitant or unreasonable. Hence an additional sum of Rs.50,000/-is awarded under the said head. 28. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all other heads found to be just and reasonable and therefore needs no interference. 29. In the result, M.A.C.A stands allowed. No cost. The compensation payable to the appellant/claimant is as indicated in the tabular statement here below : Sl. No. Head of Claim Amount awarded by the Tribunal Total amount after enhancement in appeal 1. Loss of earning 72000 96000 [12x8000] 2. Transport to hospital 8000 8000 3. Extra nourishment 15000 25000 [15000+10000] 4. Damage to clothing 500 1,500 [500+1000] 5. Medicines and treatment 488500 488500 6. Bystander's expenses 36000 46000 [36000+10000] 7. Pain and suffering 100000 100000 8. Loss of amenities and enjoyment in life 75000 75000 9. Loss of earning capacity 336960 628992 [11200x12x18x26/100] 10. Future treatment 50000 100000 Total 11,81,690 [Rounded to 11,82,000] 15,68,992 30. R1 & R2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount as enhanced by this Court with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 31. The 2nd respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the award amount in the Bank Account of the appellant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting the deposit if any already paid. 32. The appellant shall produce the details of the bank account before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 33. 32. The appellant shall produce the details of the bank account before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 33. The deposit must be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06.09.2019 and clarified in O.M.No.D1/62475/2016 dated 07.11.2019 after deducting the liabilities, if any of the appellant towards tax, balance Court Fee and legal benefit fund.