JUDGMENT : The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1743 OF 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam is the appellant in MACA No.1366 of 2017. The 3 rd respondent in the above O.P(MV) is the appellant in MACA No.684 of 2017. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal). 2. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.06.2013. According to the petitioner, on 30.06.2013 at about 05.15 p.m., while he was riding pillion on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-43-E-3911 ridden by the 2 nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, the motorcycle hit against a car. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries. 3. The 1 st respondent is the owner and 3 rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the offending motorcycle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.38,91,500/-, limited to Rs.20,00,000/-. 4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A15, B1, B2 and X1. 6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.19,89,000/- and directed the insurer to pay the same. 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the 3 rd respondent preferred MACA No.684 of 2017. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred MACA No.1366 of 2017. 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 9. Heard Sri.Rahul Sasi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/claimant, and Sri.Tapas Varma A, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd respondent/insurance company. 10. 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 9. Heard Sri.Rahul Sasi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/claimant, and Sri.Tapas Varma A, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd respondent/insurance company. 10. The Point:- In the accident the petitioner sustained head injury, frontal bone fracture, nasal bone fracture, fracture on both maxilla, right basal ganglionic bleed, fracture of right femur, lacerated wound on the right eye brow and upper lip and lacerated wound on the dorsum of right foot and deep abrasion over the right ear and tooth lost. 11. As per Exhibit X1 disability certificate, the petitioner suffered 23% permanent physical disability. It was issued by the medical board. However, considering the gravity of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the fact that he was a painter by profession, his functional disability was taken as 50% by the Tribunal. According to the learned counsel for the insurer, the functional disability of the petitioner, taken as 50%, is on the higher side. He has also argued that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation for short expectation in life, which, according to him, is not allowable. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the notional income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Further according to him, after the accident the petitioner could not continue his job as a painter as before and as such his functional disability fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The Tribunal, after examining the petitioner noticed that after the accident he could continue his job by sitting on a chair. It is true that the performance of a painter by sitting on a chair will be much less. The Tribunal fixed the functional disability of the petitioner after considering these aspects and hence, I do not find any grounds to disbelieve the same. Therefore, the functional disability of the petitioner is accepted as 50%, as fixed by the Tribunal. 13. As per the claim petition, the petitioner is a painter getting a monthly income of Rs.12,000/-. The Tribunal fixed his income at Rs.9,000/-. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. 13. As per the claim petition, the petitioner is a painter getting a monthly income of Rs.12,000/-. The Tribunal fixed his income at Rs.9,000/-. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ], the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2013 will come to Rs.9,000/-. The petitioner himself deposed before the court that he was a painter by profession and was getting a monthly income of Rs.12,000/. From the evidence of the petitioner as PW1, it is revealed that he was a painter by profession. It is true that there is no reliable evidence to prove the actual income he derived from his profession. Considering the fact that he is a painter by profession, his notional income is fixed at Rs.11,000/-. 14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 20 years. Therefore, 40% of the monthly income is to be added towards future prospects, as held in the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ] and the multiplier to be applied is 18, as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ]. In the above circumstances, the loss of disability will come to Rs.16,63,200/-. 15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.36,000/- being the income for 4 months @ Rs.9,000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained and the percentage of disability suffered by the petitioner, the petitioner might have lost income at least for a period of 10 months. Therefore, towards 'loss of income' the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- (11,000 x 10 months). 16. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- on the head compensation for short expectation in life. Since loss of disability was assessed, considering his notional income by adding 40% future prospects, separate compensation on the head compensation for short expectation in life is not required. Therefore, Rs.60,000/- awarded on the said head will be deducted. 17. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 18. Therefore, Rs.60,000/- awarded on the said head will be deducted. 17. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 18. Therefore, the petitioner/claimant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.24,51,200/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: Sl. No. Head of Claim Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Amount Awarded in Appeal (in Rs.) 1 Loss of earnings 36,000 1,10,000 2 Transport to hospital and back to home 3,500 3,500 3 Extra nourishment 22,500 22,500 4 Damage to clothes and articles 2,000 2,000 5 Attendant expenses 15,000 15,000 6 Treatment expenses 3,40,000 3,40,000 7 Compensation for pain and sufferings 1,10,000 1,10,000 8 Compensation for short expectation in life 60,000 Nil 9 Compensation for good marriage prospects 25,000 25,000 10 Compensation for loss of amenities and comforts 1,00,000 1,00,000 11 Compensation for disability 12,15,000 16,63,200 12 Compensation for disfiguration 25,000 25,000 13 Future treatment expenses 35,000 35,000 Total 19,89,000 24,51,200 19. In the result, these Appeals are disposed of as follows: The 3 rd respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.24,51,200/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakh Fifty One Thousand Two Hundred only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest at the rate ordered by the Tribunal, from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, excluding interest for a period of 120 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs in MACA1366 of 2017, within a period of two months from today. (Enhanced compensation will carry interest @8%). No costs in MACA 684 of 2017. 20. On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the petitioner, excluding court fee payable, if any, without delay, as per rules.