JUDGMENT : The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.34/2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Wayanad, Kalpetta 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 (1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 20.4.2014. According to the petitioner, on 20.4.2014 at about 12 p.m., while he was riding pillion on a Scooter from Kalpetta to Kozhikode, and when he reached a place called Pookode, a car bearing registration No.KL-11U-6309 driven by the 1 st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, knocked him down and as a result of the accident, the petitioner 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 Rs.12,92,000/- limited to Rs.7,00,000/-. 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 Exhibits A1 to A13 series 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.4,07,500/- 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 Smt. Celine Joseph, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant and Sri.P.G. Ganappan, 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. According to her, the petitioner was conducting Cable TV Network service, earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.6,000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. 11. In order to prove the income of the petitioner, the learned counsel has relied upon Exhibit A11 and A12 documents. Exhibit A11 is the Registration certificate in favour of the petitioner issued by the Postmaster, Kalpetta for conducting Cable TV Network Service at Pinangode. Exhibit A12 is the copy of the rent deed in respect of the room taken by the petitioner for conducting the cable TV Network service. 12. It is true that the petitioner could not prove his income, as claimed in the OP. However from Exhibit A11 and A12 and from the evidence given by the petitioner as PW1, it is proved that the petitioner was a Cable TV Network Operator by profession. Since from Exhibit A11 and A12, it is revealed that the petitioner was conducting Cable TV Network Service, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.15,000/-. 13. 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 2014 will come to Rs.9,500/- Therefore, the petitioner being a Cable TV Network Operator by profession, his notional income is fixed at Rs.12,000/-, for the purpose of computing the loss of disability. 14. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: “1. Comminuted fracture shaft of femur mid 1/3 rd right. 2. Comminuted fracture trochanter right hip, and 3. Comminuted fracture mid 1/3rd right tibia with intact fibula.” Petitioner was treated as inpatient for a period of 18 days. In the meanwhile, he had under gone four surgeries also. 15. 14. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: “1. Comminuted fracture shaft of femur mid 1/3 rd right. 2. Comminuted fracture trochanter right hip, and 3. Comminuted fracture mid 1/3rd right tibia with intact fibula.” Petitioner was treated as inpatient for a period of 18 days. In the meanwhile, he had under gone four surgeries also. 15. As per Exhibit C1 disability certificate issued by the medical board, his permanent physical disability was assessed as per Mc Bride Scale at 20% and as per National Institute of Orthopedically Handicapped (NIOH) Scale at 52%. From Exhibit C1 disability certificate, it is revealed that the petitioner has complaints of difficulty in squatting and sitting cross legged. He could walk with the help of elbow crutches. There is shortening of right lower limb by 2.5 inches. There is partial ankylosis right hip and knee with terminal restriction of flexion and rotations. 16. According to the learned counsel, the functional disability of the petitioner is much more than what is shown in Exhibit C1. In order to substantiate the said argument, the learned counsel has produced the petitioner before this court on 10.4.2025. At that time, this Court noticed that the petitioner could walk only with the help of crutches. Since even after 11 years of the accident, he could not walk freely, considering the fact that being a Cable TV Operator by profession, his functional disability will be much more than the physical disability as shown in Exhibit C1. In the above circumstances, the disability of the petitioner assessed as per NIOH scale at 52% is taken as the functional disability of the petitioner. 17. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 38 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.15,72,480/- 18. Towards loss of earning, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.36,000/- being the income for 6 months @Rs.6000/-. In the above circumstances, the loss of disability will come to Rs.15,72,480/- 18. Towards loss of earning, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.36,000/- being the income for 6 months @Rs.6000/-. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was treated for a period of about 1 1 /2 years and as such the loss of disability awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. However, according to the learned standing counsel, the compensation awarded on that head is reasonable. In this case, the petitioner sustained serious injuries and he had undergone four surgeries and there was shortening of right lower limb by 2.5 inches. As per the medical evidence available, he was discharged from the hospital lastly on 10.8.2015. In the above circumstances, I hold that towards loss of income, the petitioner is entitled to get the notional income for a period of 12 months. Therefore, towards 'loss of income' the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.1,44,000/- (12,000x 12 months). 19. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- Towards 'loss of amenities of life' no compensation was awarded. Towards bystander expenses and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.2,700/- each was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side. 20. The petitioner sustained very serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 18 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', 'bystander expenses' and 'extra nourishment' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.70,000/-, Rs.4,500/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively. 21. Towards transportation expenses, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/-. The learned counsel relying upon the Exhibit A13 series vouchers, would argue that the petitioner has spent a sum of Rs.26,360/- towards transportation expenses. I do not find any grounds to disbelieve Exhibit A13 series and as such towards transportation expenses, a sum of Rs.26,360/- is awarded. 22. The petitioner has produced additional medical bills worth Rs.54,000/-. Therefore, towards additional medical expense, a sum of Rs.54,000/- is awarded. Relying upon Exhibit A10 certificate issued from the Kozhikode District Co-operative Hospital, the learned counsel would argue that the petitioner still requires a considerable amount for future treatment. 22. The petitioner has produced additional medical bills worth Rs.54,000/-. Therefore, towards additional medical expense, a sum of Rs.54,000/- is awarded. Relying upon Exhibit A10 certificate issued from the Kozhikode District Co-operative Hospital, the learned counsel would argue that the petitioner still requires a considerable amount for future treatment. In Exhibit A10, it is stated that implant removal and further surgery is required and for that a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- is the approximate amount required. The learned counsel fairly conceded that medical bills worth Rs.54,000/- produced is in respect of treatment in connection with removal of implant. Therefore, considering the facts, I hold that towards future medical expense, a sum of Rs.50,000/- can be awarded, which will carry interest only from the date of this judgment (21.5.2025). 23. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 24. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.21,93,000/-, 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 36,000/- 1,44,000/- 2 Bystander expenses 2,700/- 4,500/- (250x18) 3 Transport to hospital 10,000/- 26,360/- 4 Extra nourishment 2,700/- 10,000/- 5 Damage to clothing 1,000/- 1,000/- 6 Medical expenses Additional medical expense 1,60,500/- 1,60,500/- 54000 7 Pain and suffering 40,000/- 1,00,000/- 8 Compensation for disability 1,29,600/- 15,72,480/- 9 Loss of amenities Nil 70,000/- 10 Future treatment 25,000/- 50,000/- Total 4,07,500/- 21,92,840/- rounded to 21,93,000/- Amount enhanced - Rs.17,85,500/- 25. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.21,93,000/- (Rupees twenty one lakh ninety three thousand 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, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. (Enhanced compensation will carry interest @8%). 26. 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.