JUDGMENT : C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J. The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1327/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta is the appellant in MACA. No.2639/2017. The 3 rd respondent in the OP is the appellant in MACA.No.1477/2017. (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 20.9.2011. According to the petitioner, on 20.09.2011 at about 10.45 a.m., he was riding pillion on a motor cycle ridden by the 1 st respondent in a reckless manner and in exorbitant speed and when it reached near a railway over bridge, the rider applied sudden break so that he lost control over the motor cycle and hit against a car bearing registration No. KL-04V-1574. As a result of which, the petitioner fell down and sustained serious injuries. 3. The 1 st respondent is the rider, 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 rider of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.80,00,000/-. 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 A49, B1, 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.62,80,800/- and directed the insurer to pay the same. 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred MACA.2639/2017 and the 3 rd Respondent preferred MACA.No.1477/2017. 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. A.N. Santhosh, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri. Mathews Jacob the learned Senior Standing Counsel as instructed by Sri.Jacob Mathew for the 3 rd respondent. 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. A.N. Santhosh, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri. Mathews Jacob the learned Senior Standing Counsel as instructed by Sri.Jacob Mathew 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. The petitioner was in Military Service as a Naik at the time of the accident. In the accident, the petitioner sustained very serious injuries, as shown below: “(1) severe traumatic brain injury (2) bi-frontal hemorhagic contusion (3) pneumnocephalus (4) fracture frontal bone (5) fracture left occipital bone (6) left PCA infarct act. He underwent emergency bi-frontal decompressive craniotomy, right FRI and temporal lobectomy and expansive duropalsty under general anesthesia on 21.09.2011. During the post operative period, he was ventilated for four days. Tracheostomy was done on 25.09.2011. He was discharged with advise to continue the medicine for two weeks and to attend for review after two weeks. He was further advised to attend local hospital for further management and to do LP drainage for Pseudomeningocoele.” 11. The petitioner was treated as inpatient for a total period of 303 days in 18 spells and in the meantime he had undergone 8 major surgeries. As per Exhibit A28 disability certificate issued by the medical board, the petitioner suffered 25% permanent physical disability. However, as per Exhibit A41, disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, military hospital, his functional disability was assessed as 60%. 12. The petitioner was in Military Service as a Naik at the time of the accident. Based on his merit he got selection as a NSG commando and served there as a commando for a period of five years when he met with the accident. Because of the injuries sustained in the accident, he was decategorized to a low category. Ultimately his service was terminated from service on 24.1.2017. His wife was examined as PW1 and she adduced evidence narrating the series of surgeries undergone by the petitioner as well as the treatment undertaken by him in various hospitals ranging from Command Hospital Banglore, Pushpagiri Hospital Thiruvalla, Military hospital Hydrabad, Bombay etc. After considering all the aspects, the Tribunal, has fixed his functional disability at 80%. 13. His wife was examined as PW1 and she adduced evidence narrating the series of surgeries undergone by the petitioner as well as the treatment undertaken by him in various hospitals ranging from Command Hospital Banglore, Pushpagiri Hospital Thiruvalla, Military hospital Hydrabad, Bombay etc. After considering all the aspects, the Tribunal, has fixed his functional disability at 80%. 13. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the insurer would argue that the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.26,88,000/- towards loss of disability and thereafter awarded a further sum of Rs.10,72,780/- towards loss of earning, which according him, is not justified. Further according to him, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,00,000/- towards loss of amenities, which are on the higher side. According to him, Rs.4,00,000/- awarded on the head 'mental agony' could not have been awarded. He also argue that the notional income of the petitioner fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.20,000/- is also on the higher side. 14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that because of the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner is completely bed ridden and unable to move without the help of a bystander and as such his functional disability is to be taken as 100%. He would also argue that the injuries sustained in the accident have completely ruined the life of the petitioner, including the marital life. Therefore, according to him, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. 15. In order to convince the court about the present condition of the petitioner, the learned counsel has relied upon Annexures A1 to A175, produced along with I.A. No.1 of 2025. Those Annexures include medical bills worth Rs.7,62,023/-, discharge summaries related to those medical bills as well as photographs of the petitioner showing his present condition. Even in the impugned Award, the Tribunal noted that the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal with the help of his wife and also with the help of another person. From the photographs produced as Annexures A174, 175 series, it can be seen that the petitioner is still bedridden and catheter is being used for collecting urine. Therefore, considering the above condition of the petitioner even after 13 years, his functional disability is taken as 100%. 16. From the photographs produced as Annexures A174, 175 series, it can be seen that the petitioner is still bedridden and catheter is being used for collecting urine. Therefore, considering the above condition of the petitioner even after 13 years, his functional disability is taken as 100%. 16. From Exhibit A35 salary certificate, it is revealed that his salary at the time of the accident was Rs.21,835/-. Considering the fact that because of the injuries sustained in the accident, he was decategorized from the service in Army and finally he was terminated with effect from 24.4.2017, in spite of the fact that his retirement was in 2019,there was considerable loss to him, in his service as well as his salary. In the above circumstances, for the purpose of assessing the loss of disability, the notional income is fixed at Rs.15,000/-. 17. Since on the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 29 years and he was a permanent employee, 50% 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 17, 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.45,90,000/-. 18. Since the functional disability of the petitioner is taken as 100%, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the head 'loss of earning' need not be given and as such Rs.10,72,780/- awarded on the head loss of earning will be deducted. 19. From the evidence on record, it is revealed that the petitioner was treated as inpatient for a total period of 303 days in 18 spells and in the meantime he had undergone 8 major surgeries also. After observing the petitioner, the Tribunal noted in the Award that he could not walk or move without the assistance of others. His head was in irregular shape because of the surgeries performed on the head. The oval shape of the head was lost and it is now in irregular shape. The Tribunal also noted that he could not speak clearly. 20. His head was in irregular shape because of the surgeries performed on the head. The oval shape of the head was lost and it is now in irregular shape. The Tribunal also noted that he could not speak clearly. 20. While the petitioner was working in Indian Army, at the age of 29 as NSG Commando, he met with the accident and as a result of which he lost his career as well as his life including marital life and as such the compensation of Rs.600000/- awarded on the head 'pain and suffering' cannot be treated as excessive. 21. Towards 'loss of amenities' Rs.10,00,000/- was awarded and in addition to the same, Rs.4,00,000/- was awarded towards mental agony, which are prima facie on the higher side. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the percentage of disability suffered and the length of treatment undergone by the petitioner, I hold that towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.7,00,000/- can be awarded. Therefore, the excess amount awarded on the head loss of amenities and compensation awarded on the head mental agony' will be deducted. 22. The medical bills worth Rs.7,62,023/-, produced by the petitioner for the period from 2018 to 2022 shows that the petitioner was under treatment till recently. It will also go to show that the petitioner requires future treatment, for the rest of his life. In the above circumstances, towards additional medical expenses a sum of Rs.7,62,023 is awarded. 23. Since the petitioner has been completely bedridden and unable to move without the assistance of anybody, he is entitled to get the expense of a bystander. In the decision in Kajal v. Jagadish Chand and Others, AIR 2020 SC 776 = [ (2020) 4 SCC 413 ], the expense of a bystander was fixed by the Apex Court at Rs.5000/- based on the minimum wages of a skilled labour prevailing during the said period in the State of Haryana. 24. As per the notification issued by the Government of Kerala, the notional income of a skilled labour in the year 2009 was Rs.3,9556/- and in the year 2016 it was 8,910/-, with an average increase of Rs.708/- per year. Therefore, the notional income of a skilled labour in the state of Kerala in 2011, as per the above notifications will come to Rs.5,372/-. Therefore, the notional income of a skilled labour in the state of Kerala in 2011, as per the above notifications will come to Rs.5,372/-. Therefore, the expense of a bystander to be awarded to the petitioner is fixed at Rs.5,372/- per month. Since the multiplier to be applied is 17, towards bystander expenses he is entitled to get a sum of Rs.10,95,888/- (5372x12x17). 25. Towards future medical expenses, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/-. Since the petitioner is completely bedridden, and he requires the assistance of a bystander for everything including attending nature's call, towards the cost of diapers, gloves, cleaning materials etc., he will require considerable amount. Therefore, Rs.2,00,000/- awarded on the head future medical expenses is on the lower side and hence it is enhanced to Rs.4,00,000/-. Considering the facts, towards extra nourishment the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-. 26. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 27. Therefore, the petitioner/appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.83,92,911/- rounded to Rs.83,93,000/-, 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 earning 10,72,780/- Nil 2 Transport to hospital 25,000/- 25,000/- 3 Extra nourishment 25,000/- 50,000/- 4 Damage to clothing 2000/- 2,000/- 5 Medical expenses 1,68,000/- 1,68,000/- 6 Bystander expenses 1,00,000/- 10,95,888/- 7 Pain and suffering 6,00,000/- 6,00,000/- 8 Loss of earning capacity/disability 26,88,000/- 45,90,000/- 9 Loss of amenities 10,00,000/- 7,00,000/- 10 Mental agony 4,00,000/- Nil 11 Future medical expenses 2,00,000/- 4,00,000/- 12 Additional medical expenses Nil 7,62,023/-(Bills produced in appeal) 13 Total 62,80,780/- rounded to 62,80,800/- 83,92,911/- rounded to 83,93,000/- Amount Enhanced Rs.21,12,200/- 28. In the result, these Appeals are disposed of as follows: Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.83,93,000/- (Rupees eighty three lakh ninety three thousand only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, with proportionate costs in MACA 2639 of 2017, within a period of two months from today. Penal interest imposed by the Tribunal at 12% is omitted. No costs in MACA 1477 of 2017. 29. Penal interest imposed by the Tribunal at 12% is omitted. No costs in MACA 1477 of 2017. 29. On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse 25% of the entire amount, excluding court fee payable, if any, to the petitioner, forthwith. 30. 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(s) in the name of the petitioner and to permit withdrawal of interest alone for the time being.