JUDGMENT : The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1477/2008 on the file of the Addl.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, is the appellant herein. (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 18.05.2008. The petitioner was a 12 year old girl at the time of the accident. According to the petitioner, on 18.05.2008 at about 5.30 p.m., while the child was standing in front of her school, a maruti omni van bearing reg.no.KL-4/P-0739 driven by the 1 st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, knocked her down, and as a result of the accident, she sustained serious injuries. 3. The 1 st respondent is the driver, the 2 nd 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 driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is limited to Rs.6,00,000/- 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 A11 and C1. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. 6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.7,30,175/- and directed the insurer to pay the same. 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal. 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.B.Pramod, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.P.K.Manoj Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd respondent. 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal. 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal. At the time of the accident she was a 7 th standard student. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: 1. Contusion back of the head. 2. Swelling right eyelid. 3. CT Scan shows one subarchanoid hemarrage, brain odema present. 4. Right orbital wall fracture medially. 11. As per Exhibit C1 disability certificate the petitioner suffered 47% permanent physical disability. It was issued by the Government Medical College, Kottayam. The Tribunal, has accepted the permanent physical disability of the petitioner as such. 12. Since from the injuries sustained in the accident, she is suffering from neurological disability and the Tribunal itself noted after observing her that, from the appearance itself it can be seen that she is suffering from neurological disability and that she is unable to manage herself, her functional disability will be munch more than what is assessed by the medical board and shown in Ext.C1. Therefore, considering the facts, I fix her functional disability at 60%. 13. The Tribunal has taken her notional income at Rs.2500/-. In the impugned award, the Tribunal has noted that the petitioner was a bright student and was also actively participating in extra curricular activities and she had won several prizes for dances, Kuchippudi etc. PW1, the doctor who examined her, deposed before the Tribunal that the petitioner has neurological disability and it will not be improved by physiotherapy. In the award the Tribunal also noted that, from the appearance of the petitioner itself it is revealed that she has neurological disability and also that she is unable to manage herself. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even now she is a spinster and it is because of the injuries sustained in the accident. In the above circumstances, this is to be taken as an exceptional case as the compensation that can be awarded as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Master Mallikarjun V v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd and another [ (2014) 14 SCC 396 ] , will not be able to award just and reasonable compensation to her. 15. 15. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in , the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2008 will come to Rs.6500/-. The learned counsel has relied upon the decision in Mekala v. M.Malathi and another – [(2014) 11 SCC 178] and argued that in the above decision the apex court has fixing the notional income of a plus two student at Rs.10,000/-. However, the learned counsel for the insurer would argue that in this case the age of the victim was only 12 year. Considering the entire facts, I am inclined to fix her notional income at Rs.7500/-. 16. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 12 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 15, 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.11,34,000/-. 17. At the time of the accident, the petitioner was a 7 th standard student and the accident itself occurred in front of her school. The learned counsel submitted that, the accident has really affected her study and also her marriage prospects. Therefore, considering the facts, I hold that towards ‘loss of study’ a sum of Rs.1 lakh can be awarded. 18. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.10000/- was awarded and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.2000/- was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side. 19. The petitioner sustained very serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 53 days. Because of the injuries sustained, the percentage of disability suffered and the length of treatment undergone by the petitioner, I hold that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the heads ‘pain and sufferings’, 'loss of amenities of life' and 'extra nourishment' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.10000/- respectively. 20. Towards ‘disfiguration’ and ‘loss of marriage prospects’ the Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/-. 20. Towards ‘disfiguration’ and ‘loss of marriage prospects’ the Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/-. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded on the aforesaid head. 21. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 22. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.21,70,675/-, 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 study 20000 100000 2 Transport to hospital 3000 3000 3 Medical expense 383175 383175 4 Bystander expense 10000 10000 5 Extra nourishment 2000 10000 6 Damage to clothing and articles 500 500 7 Physiotherapy 30000 30000 8 Further treatment (disfiguration & marriage prospects) 40000 200000 9 Pain and suffering 20000 100000 10 Loss of amenities 10000 200000 11 Permanent disability 211500 1134000 Total 730175 2170675 Enhanced Rs. 1440500 21. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.21,70,675/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Seventy Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Five only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, excluding interest for a period of 137 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. 22. On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse 25% of the entire amount, excluding court fee payable, if any, to the petitioner, forthwith. 23. The Tribunal is permitted to decide, after considering the welfare, well being and the best interest of the petitioner, whether the balance amount is to be disbursed in full, forthwith or in installments or to be deposited in a Nationalised bank in fixed deposit in the name of the petitioner and to permit withdrawal of interest alone for the time being.