JUDGMENT : C.S. SUDHA, J. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.21/2019 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 28/01/2020. The sole respondent herein is the second respondent/insurer in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition. 2. According to the claim petitioner, on 20/11/2018 at about 03:15 p.m., while he was riding motorcycle through Aluva-Paravur public road and when he reached the place by name Vedimara, car bearing registration no.KL7BM5181 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. A sum of Rs.40,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads. 3. The first respondent/owner-cum-driver remained ex parte. 4. The second respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle but denied negligence on the part of the first respondent. 5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A14 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was adduced by the second respondent/insurer. 6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent/owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs.18,85,642/- together with interest. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioner has come up in appeal. 7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court. 8. Heard both sides 9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads are challenged by the claim petitioner - Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the latter, a 62-year-old coolie, was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at Rs.10,000/- only, which is low in the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236. 9.1. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at Rs.10,000/- only, which is low in the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236. 9.1. In the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), I find that fixing the notional income of the claim petitioner at Rs.11,500/- would be just and reasonable. Loss of earnings 10. The materials on record show that following injuries were sustained by the claim petitioner: “1) right side acute subdural hemorrhage 2) bilateral frontal and right temporal hemorrhage contusions 3) multiple skull fractures 4) right maxillary sinus fracture.” He was hospitalized in two spells for a total period of 39 days. In the light of the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization and the surgical interventions to which he was subjected to, I find that he can be granted compensation towards loss of earnings for a period of 3 months, which is Rs.34,500/- (11,500 x 3 months). Percentage of disability 11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that in the light of Ext.A7 disability certificate, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the functional disability as 100%. However, the disability has been fixed at 65% which is incorrect and hence needs to be enhanced. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer that Ext.A7 has been issued by a single doctor and not by a Medical Board and that the doctor who issued the same had also not been examined and therefore the contents does not stand proved. Despite the same, the Tribunal fixed the disability at 65% which is just and reasonable and hence no further enhancement is required. 11.1. Ext.A7 disability certificate reads thus: “This is to certify that Mr.Aboobaker, 61 years, r/o.Thoppilparambil (H), Vedimara, North Paravur P.O., Ernakulam was involved in a road traffic accident on 20.11.2018. He was treated at Don Bosco hospital on 20.11.18 and thereafter at Aster Medicity Kochi from 20.11.2018 to 20.12.2018 as IP no.18/22687. According to the wound certificate and discharge summary from the hospitals he was diagnosed as head injury, right fronto temporo parietal acute SDH with mass effect and midline shift, bifrontal and right temporal hemorrhagic contusions, multiple skull fractures- fracture of bilateral frontal, left parietal and left temporal bones extending to squamous and mastoid temporal bone and external auditory canal and right maxillary fracture. At the time of admission to the hospital he had bleeding from left ear with loss of consciousness, GCS E2V2M5 (9/15), was drowsy and had vomiting. He underwent emergency surgery for the head injury- right fronto temporo parietal decompressive craniectomy, SDH evacuation and contusionectomy. He was treated again on multiple occasions at Sree Narayana Institute of Medical Sciences Ernakulam for tracheostomy care and attempted removal. His CT scan brain taken on 22.10.2019 shows evidence of bilateral basi frontal and right temporo parietal lobe gliosis due to the head injury with right TP craniectomy and bone defect. He is educated up to 3 rd standard and by occupation was a head load worker at the time of the accident. Now on clinical examination after verifying the available treatment documents he has the following findings and disabilities. Higher mental functions- He was evaluated using Mini Mental status examination protocol (MMSE). His orientation in time and place are impaired (2/5 each). He has impaired registration (1/3). His attention and calculation ability are reduced (2/5). His retention and recall memory and memory for recent events are impaired (1/3). His speech and language function shows reduced naming ability (1/2), normal repetition (1/1), and inability to fully carry out three step commands (1/3). He cannot read and obey (0/1). His MMSE score is reduced to 11/28 s/o severe cognitive impairment. He has headache, and giddiness for which he has been on follow up treatment. Cranial Nerve examination- He has bilateral anosmia (impaired sense of smell), relative ageusia (loss of taste), due to the injury to the bilateral frontal lobes of brain sustained in the head injury, due to the accident. Spinomotor examination- He has paucity of left side movements. He has moderately left hemiplegia. His left upper limb power is grade 4(-) for shoulder and elbow and the hands and elbow are in spastic flexion. He cannot carry out any purposeful activity or movements using the left hand. She cannot use his left upper limb for gross or fine motor activities. His right lower limb has grade 4 power in the hip and knee with spastic extension of knee, foot and toes. He can walk with support but cannot run or climb up or down stairs or slope. He cannot stand without support or get up from sitting or lying down position without support. He always needs a second person's help to ambulate. He can walk with support but cannot run or climb up or down stairs or slope. He cannot stand without support or get up from sitting or lying down position without support. He always needs a second person's help to ambulate. This amounts to moderately severe upper motor neuron type of Spinomotor disability. He has lifelong risk of post traumatic epilepsy due to the evidence of gliosis in CT scan brain and has been advised to continue antiepileptic medicines by the treating doctor. His disabilities are lifelong and needs prolonged medications, physiotherapy and follow up treatment. His total permanent neurological disability is assessed according to the guidelines in the AllMS document, Persons with Disabilities Act 1995, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and Mc brides schedule as follows- 1). Permanent disability due to cognitive impairment with a lowered MMSE score with definite impairment to adaptation in social and domestic conduct with extended persistent symptoms, requiring enforcement of continued adjustments in daily life activities and recurrent vertigo and headache with lifelong risk for post traumatic epilepsy due to the gliosis amount to 40% disability of whole body 2). Permanent disability due to bilateral hyposmia and hypogeusia due to the impairment in olfactory sensory nerve due to the bifrontal lobe injury, amounts to 10% disability of whole body 3). Permanent disability due to moderate UMN type of left hemiparesis due to the right fronto temporo parietal lobe injury, amounts to 25% disability of whole body. 4). He has a cosmetically deforming depression over the right half of skull with loss of bone due to the accident and surgery and this amounts to 2% disability of whole body. The total permanent whole body disability due to neurological impairment is calculated using the combination formula a + b (100-a)/100 = 60.3% (sixty decimal three zero percent). ” (Emphasis supplied) 11.2. Ext.A7 was marked without any objection. That being the position, it cannot now be contented that the same cannot be accepted in evidence. The fact that the claim petitioner was a coolie is not seen disputed or denied. Hence, the disability that has been caused due to the accident has resulted in 100% functional disability going by the dictum in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, [ (2011) 1 SCC 343 ]. The fact that the claim petitioner was a coolie is not seen disputed or denied. Hence, the disability that has been caused due to the accident has resulted in 100% functional disability going by the dictum in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, [ (2011) 1 SCC 343 ]. Hence the percentage of functional disability fixed by the Tribunal as 65% does not appear to be correct in the light of Ext.A7, an undisputed document. Future treatment 12. An amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is seen awarded by the Tribunal under this head. IA No.1 of 2024 for receiving additional documents has been allowed and the medical bills produced can be marked as Ext.A15 series. As per Ext.A15 series, an amount of Rs.1,81,183/- has been expended. As Rs.2,00,000/- has already been awarded, no further amount is required to be awarded. Bystander expenses 13. In the light of Ext.A7, the learned counsel for the claim petitioner submits that a reasonable amount ought to have been granted under this head also. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer that the claim petitioner never had a claim under this head and therefore there is no necessity for granting any amount under this head. 13.1. As noticed earlier, as per Ext.A7, it is reported that the claim petitioner cannot stand up without support or get up from sitting or lying down position without support and that he requires the help of a person to ambulate. In the light of Section 168 of the Act and Ext.A7, which makes it clear that it is practically impossible for the claim petitioner to move about without a third person's help, I find that he can be granted an amount of Rs.9,66,000/- (11,500x12x7)as compensation under this head. 14. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent: Sl. No. Head of claim Amount claimed (in Rs.) Amount Awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Modified in appeal (in Rs.) 1. Loss of earning 2,00,000/- Nil 34,500/- (11,500 x 3) 2. Partial loss of earning 50,000/- Nil Nil (No Modification) 3. Transportation to hospital 15,000/- 3,000/- 3,000/- (No Modification) 4. Extra nourishment 15,000/- 3,000/- 3,000/- (No Modification) 5. Damage to clothing 10,000/- 1,500/- 1,500/- (No Modification) 6. Medical expenses 30,00,000/- 8,67,142/- 8,67,142/- (No Modification) 7. Nursing and attendance 50,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/- (No Modification) 8. Partial loss of earning 50,000/- Nil Nil (No Modification) 3. Transportation to hospital 15,000/- 3,000/- 3,000/- (No Modification) 4. Extra nourishment 15,000/- 3,000/- 3,000/- (No Modification) 5. Damage to clothing 10,000/- 1,500/- 1,500/- (No Modification) 6. Medical expenses 30,00,000/- 8,67,142/- 8,67,142/- (No Modification) 7. Nursing and attendance 50,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/- (No Modification) 8. Compensation for loss of amenities and conveniences in life 5,00,000/- 50,000/- 50,000/- (No Modification) 9. Compensation for pain and suffering 5,00,000/- 2,00,000/- 2,00,000/- (No Modification) 10 Compensation for permanent disability/functio nal disability 15,00,000/- 5,46,000/- (10,000 x 12 x7 x 65/100) 9,66,000/- (11,500 x 12 x 7 x 100/100) 11 Compensation for loss of earning power and future treatment 5,00,000/- 2,00,000/- 2,00,000/- (No Modification) 12 Bystander expenses 9,66,000/- Nil 9,66,000/- (11,500 x 12 x 7) Total 63,40,000/- limited to 40,00,000/- 18,85,642/- 33,06,142/- In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.14,20,500/- (total compensation Rs.33,06,142/- that is, Rs.18,85,642/- granted by the Tribunal plus Rs.14,20,500/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization and proportionate costs. The second respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claim petitioner at the earliest in accordance with law after making deductions, if any. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.