JUDGMENT : M.B. SNEHALATHA, J. 1. Appellant is the claimant in OP(MV) No. 2354/2011 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’]. He has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal as claimant and respondents. 3. On 17.03.2011, claimant met with a motor vehicle accident and sustained grievous injuries. Accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R2, who was the driver of the offending lorry bearing Registration No. KL-3/B 642. R1 is the owner of the said lorry and R3 is the insurer of the said vehicle. Claimant approached the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-. By the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 23,59,160/- as compensation with interest at 9% per annum. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded, the claimant has come in appeal seeking enhanced compensation. 4. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the records. 5. It is not in dispute that on 17.03.2011, the claimant met with an accident. The evidence on record would show that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R2 who was the driver of offending lorry bearing registration No. KL-3/B 642. There is also no dispute over the fact that the offending lorry had valid insurance coverage at the time of the accident. 6. The appeal has been preferred by the claimant contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too low and inadequate. According to the learned counsel for the claimant, the Tribunal failed to award reasonable and just compensation; that the amount awarded under various heads are on a lower side; the monthly income taken is very low; that the Tribunal failed to award compensation under the head continuing permanent disability; that the Tribunal failed to note the fact that claimant is still in a vegetative state and failed to consider the magnitude of the disabilities suffered by the claimant. 7. The learned counsel for the insurance company on the other hand contended that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. 8. Now Let us see whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation and if so, what is the quantum. 9. 7. The learned counsel for the insurance company on the other hand contended that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. 8. Now Let us see whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation and if so, what is the quantum. 9. Exts.A7 and A10 wound certificates would reveal that the claimant sustained fracture both ramus, fracture right leg, multiple hemorrhagic contusions -DAI, fracture pelvis both ramus right with acetabular floor, fracture right leg, right haemothorax with right diaphragmatic palsy. Ext.A18 reveals that the claimant sustained diffused axonal injury Grade III. Exts.A9, A10, A12, A18 to A21 medical reports would further reveal that he was treated as an inpatient at Ananthapuri Hospital Thiruvanthapuram, Sree Narayana Trust Medical Mission Kollam, Al-Shifa Hospital Challissery and undergone therapeutic exercise, positional stretching techniques and functional electrical stimulation, at Centre for Physiotherapy Varkala. 10. It is in evidence that, the claimant had undergone inpatient treatment for more than one year and spent huge amount for treatment. The Standing Disability Assessment Board, Govt. Medical College Hospital, Kottayam has issued Ext.X1 certificate stating that claimant is suffering from 84% neurological disability. In the award passed by the Tribunal, it has been stated that the claimant was produced before the Tribunal; that he could not stand on his own and he was disoriented and was in a vegetative state. 11. The principles with regard to determination of just compensation contemplated under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are well settled. It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. The court has to make a judicial attempt to award damages so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by the victim. It is also a well settled principle that the compensation or damages assessed for personal injuries should be substantial to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by him throughout his life and it should not be just token damages. 12. While fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money. Non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. Sec.168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 stipulates that there should be a grant of just compensation. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money. Non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. Sec.168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 stipulates that there should be a grant of just compensation. It is the duty of the Tribunal or court of law to determine “just compensation” which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall and simultaneously should not be pittance. 13. It is trite that, it would be open to the Claims Tribunal or the High Court and virtually it is the duty of the Tribunal and the High Court to award ‘just compensation’ under each head and if found necessary, by ignoring the claim made in the application for compensation. 14. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles, let us consider whether the Tribunal has awarded just compensation and whether the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation. 15. The case of the claimant is that he was a businessman. The monthly income shown in the application was Rs. 5,000/-per month. The learned Tribunal took Rs. 5,000/-as monthly income for the purpose of assessing compensation. 16. The learned counsel for the claimant 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. 17. In Ramachandrappa [cited supra], 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. 18. 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. 19. 500/- in every subsequent year. 19. In Minu Rout and Another vs. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and Others, 2013 KHC 4701, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that though the appellants therein filed the claim petition showing Rs. 5,000/-as monthly salary of the deceased for the purpose of determining the loss of dependency, the Tribunal ought to have taken the salary of the victim who was a driver at the rate of Rs. 6,000/-per month by taking judicial notice of the fact that post of a driver is a skilled job. 20. Bearing in mind the above yardsticks, this Court is of the view that the notional income of the claimant herein can be fixed at Rs. 8,000/-per month for the purpose of awarding just compensation in the claim petition filed by him. 21. Under the head loss of earnings, the Tribunal has awarded loss of earning for a period of twelve months calculated at the rate of Rs. 5,000/-. As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, this Court has fixed the notional income as Rs. 8,000/-. Accordingly, claimant is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 96,000/-[12x8000] under the head loss of earning during the period of treatment. 22. Under the head extra nourishment, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 49,500/-. It is in evidence that he was treated as an inpatient for more than one year and he is still in a vegetative state. So he requires extra nourishment as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimant. Accordingly, a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded under the said head. 23. Under the head transport to the hospital, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. Evidence on record would reveal that claimant who suffered grievous injuries, who is unable to move on his own, had to be taken to various hospitals for treatment for a long period. So naturally his family had to incur huge amount for transportation. In the said circumstances the amount of Rs. 20,000/-awarded by the Tribunal is found to be meager. Therefore, an additional sum of Rs. 50,000/-is awarded under the head transportation charges. 24. Under the head damage to clothing and articles, as against the claim of Rs. 1000/-, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 500/-, which is on a lower side. Accordingly an additional sum of Rs. 500/- awarded under the said head. 25. Therefore, an additional sum of Rs. 50,000/-is awarded under the head transportation charges. 24. Under the head damage to clothing and articles, as against the claim of Rs. 1000/-, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 500/-, which is on a lower side. Accordingly an additional sum of Rs. 500/- awarded under the said head. 25. Under the head pain and sufferings, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Regard being had to the grievous nature of injuries and the long period of inpatient and outpatient treatment which he had to undergo and taking into account the vegetative state of the injured, an additional sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-is awarded under the head of pain and suffering. 26. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 11,54,860/-towards medical expenses. The amount awarded under the said head does not need any interference as it is based on Exts.A22, A24 and A29 series medical bills. 27. Under the head compensation for continuing or permanent disability, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 5,40,000/-by taking notional income as Rs. 5,000/-and also by taking his functional disability as 100% applying multiplier 9. 28. The learned counsel for the claimant vehemently contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head compensation for permanent disability taking the monthly income as Rs. 5,000/-and without adding any sum towards future prospects in income is wrong and unjust. Further it is contended that the claimant was in the age group 51-55, and therefore the multiplier applicable to him is 11 instead of 9 taken by the Tribunal. 29. The evidence on record would reveal that due to the accident, the claimant suffered fracture both ramus, fracture right leg, multiple hemorrhagic contusions -DAI, fracture pelvis both ramus right with acetabular floor, fracture right leg, right haemothorax with right diaphragmatic palsy and he suffered permanent disability. In Ext.XI disability certificate, the medical board has certified that claimant is suffering from 84% neurological disability. The Tribunal in its findings has specifically made mention that the claimant who was brought before the Tribunal is in a vegetative state and therefore, the Tribunal took his functional disability as 100%. R3 insurance company has no dispute over the fact that claimant is in a vegetative state. 30. The Tribunal in its findings has specifically made mention that the claimant who was brought before the Tribunal is in a vegetative state and therefore, the Tribunal took his functional disability as 100%. R3 insurance company has no dispute over the fact that claimant is in a vegetative state. 30. Thus, it stands established that the claimant who suffered grievous injuries in the accident, sustained permanent disability and he is living in a vegetative state. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed his functional disability as 100%. 31. In Sidram vs. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (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.” 32. In a catena of decisions viz. Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande and Another, (2017) 3 SCC 351, Jagadish v. Mohan and Others, (2018) 4 SCC 571 and Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Limited, AIR 2020 SCC 4284 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the victim, who suffered permanent disability, is entitled to compensation including loss of future prospects. 33. Victim was in the age group of 51-55 at the time of the accident. Therefore, 10% of his income will have to be factored towards compensation for loss of future prospects [(Pranay Sethi’s case (Supra)] Accordingly, when 10% of income is thus added, his monthly income would come to Rs. 8,800/-(8000+800). The multiplier applicable to him is 11. Therefore he is entitled to get Rs. 8,800x12x11=Rs. Therefore, 10% of his income will have to be factored towards compensation for loss of future prospects [(Pranay Sethi’s case (Supra)] Accordingly, when 10% of income is thus added, his monthly income would come to Rs. 8,800/-(8000+800). The multiplier applicable to him is 11. Therefore he is entitled to get Rs. 8,800x12x11=Rs. 11,61,600/-under the head compensation for loss of earning due to permanent disability. 34. Under the head of loss of amenities, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/-. As mentioned earlier, the claimant is bedridden and he is in a vegetative state and he cannot enjoy the pleasures of life including marital life. Accordingly, an additional sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded under the said head. 35. Under the head by-stander expenses, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,14,300/-. As mentioned earlier, due to the accident the claimant suffered 100% functional disability and he is living in a vegetative state, he cannot move on his own and for the whole life, he is in need of a bystander/attendant. 36. In Jagadish Vs. Mohan and Others, (2018) 4 SCC 571 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..” 37. In Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413 wherein victim in a motor accident case was a girl child aged 12 years whose permanent disability was assessed as 100%, the Hon’ble Apex Court used the multiplier method for granting attendant charges and applied multiplier as 18 and also fixing the cost of two attendants as Rs. 5000/- each. 38. In the case on hand also, the claimant suffers from 100% permanent disability and he is in a vegetative state. Therefore, he will require atleast one attendant for the whole life. 5000/- each. 38. In the case on hand also, the claimant suffers from 100% permanent disability and he is in a vegetative state. Therefore, he will require atleast one attendant for the whole life. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the multiplier method adopted by the Hon’ble Apex Court can be followed in this case also. Accordingly, the cost of one attendant is taken as Rs. 5,000/-per month and using the multiplier 11, it works out to Rs. 6,60,000/-(Rs. 5000x12x11). Accordingly, under the head bystander expenses, an amount of Rs. 6,60,000/-is awarded instead of Rs. 1,14,300/-awarded by the Tribunal. 39. Under the head future treatment, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Regard being had to the injuries suffered and the disability sustained by the claimant as revealed from medical records, this Court is of the view that an additional amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-is to be granted for future treatment. Accordingly, under the head future treatment, an additional sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded. 40. In the result, appeal stands allowed. The compensation payable to the appellant/claimant is as indicated in the tabular statement here below: S. No. Head of Claim Amount awarded by the Tribunal Total amount after enhancement in appeal 1 Loss of earning 60000 96000 [8000x12] 2 Transport to hospital 20000 70000 [20000+ 50000] 3 Extra nourishment 49500 99500 [49500+50000] 4 Damage to clothing and articles 500 1000 [500+500] 5 Future treatment 100000 200000 [100000+100000] 6 Medical Expenses 1154860 1154860 7 Pain and suffering 50000 150000 (50000+100000) 8 Loss of amenities 270000 470000 (270000+200000) 9 Bystander Expense 114300 6,60,000 (5000x12x11) 10 Compensation for continuing or permanent disability 5,40,000 [5000x12x9] 1161600 [8800x12x11] Total Rs. 23,59,160 Rs. 4062960 Amount enhanced Rs. 17,03,800/- [Rs. 40,62,960 - Rs. 23,59,160] 41. R1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount as enhanced by this Court with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 42. The 3rd respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the award amount in the Bank Account of the claimant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting the deposit if any already made. Since there was a delay of 64 days in filing the appeal, the claimant will not be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount for the said period. 43. Since there was a delay of 64 days in filing the appeal, the claimant will not be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount for the said period. 43. The claimant shall produce the details of the bank account before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 44. 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.