JUDGMENT : C.S. SUDHA, J. The aforesaid appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the third respondent/insurer in O.P.(MV) No.1232/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 16/08/2019. The sole respondent herein is the claim petitioner, who has filed the cross objection claiming enhancement. In this appeal and cross objection, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition. 2. According to the claim petitioner, on 18/04/2016 at 04:00 p.m., he was riding motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-21/1879 through Kollam-Ayoor public road and when he reached near the place by name Cheruvakkal junction, lorry bearing registration no.KL-25/B-1513 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. A sum of Rs.80,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads. 3. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/driver remained ex parte. 4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle. The age, occupation and income of the claim petitioner were disputed. It was contended that the compensation claimed was quite excessive. 5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A26 and Ext.X1 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced from the side of the respondents. 6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs.1,02,27,000/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation excluding interest for future treatment expenses. Aggrieved by the Award, the third respondent/insurer 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 is challenged - Age and multiplier It was submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the latter was aged 25 years at the time of the incident. 8. Heard both sides 9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads is challenged - Age and multiplier It was submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the latter was aged 25 years at the time of the incident. Therefore, the correct multiplier to be applied was 18'. However, the Tribunal took 17' as the multiplier, which is an error that requires to be corrected. Per contra it was submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the third respondent/insurer that no evidence was produced to prove the age of the claim petitioner and therefore the Tribunal was justified in taking the multiplier as 17'. 9.1. In the petition, the age of the claim petitioner is stated to be 25 years. Paragraph 4 of the written statement of the third respondent/insurer reads - “The age, occupation and income of the petitioner are false and hence denied. … … …”. In all the medical records that have been produced before the Tribunal, marked and admitted in evidence, the age of the claim petitioner is stated to be 25 years in the year 2016. These documents are not seen disputed or denied by the third respondent/insurer. That being so, the age of the claim petitioner can be taken to be 25 years at the time of the incident and therefore the Tribunal went wrong in taking 17' as the multiplier. The correct multiplier to be applied is ' 18 '. Percentage of functional disability and compensation for loss of future earnings 10. It was submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the third respondent/insurer that when Ext.X1 disability certificate states that the disability is only 78%, the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the disability at 100%. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner, referring to Ext.X1 that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the Tribunal rightly fixed the disability at 100%. The claim petitioner is unable to walk without assistance. He needs a constant attendant by his side as he has a tendency to fall. Due to frequent falls, he has sustained injuries including fractures which had to be operated upon. Reference was made to the dictum in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand , (2020) 4 SCC 413 in support of the arguments. 10.1. He needs a constant attendant by his side as he has a tendency to fall. Due to frequent falls, he has sustained injuries including fractures which had to be operated upon. Reference was made to the dictum in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand , (2020) 4 SCC 413 in support of the arguments. 10.1. Ext.X1 the Disability Certificate dated 24/10/2017 issued by the Medical Board, Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram reads thus - “ DISABILITY CERTIFICATE No.G2/14471/2017/GMCH/TVM Dated: 24/10/2017 Medical Board constituted as per the order of the Hon'ble Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, in OP (MV) 1232/2016. We, the members of the Medical Board, Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram have examined Sri. Vipin Mohan aged 26 years. S/o Vasantha Kumary residing at Vipin bhavan, Kanyakuzhy, Punnukkannur Alummodu P.O. Kollam on 24/10/2017, and found him as a person with disability by reason of physical and visual impairment due to; 1. Neurosurgical disability due to (i) Moderate Cerebellar ataxia. (ii) Moderate Dysarthria (iii) Mild Bladder incontinance. 2. Visual Disability- No perception of light Right eye 3. Orthopaedic Disability- Partial ankylosis of Right Elbow. … … … The following consultants in different specialties were included in the Medical Board and they have examined the patient to assess the disability and it has been found that the disability is permanent, the degree of disabilities have been found as 78% (Seventy Eight percentage) . … … …” (Emphasis supplied). 10.2. 'Ataxia' is an abnormal condition characterized by impaired ability to coordinate movement. A staggering gait and postural imbalance are caused by a lesion in the spinal code or cerebellum, which might be the sequela of birth trauma, congenital disorder, infection, degenerative disorder, neoplasm, toxic substance, or head injury. (Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 2006, page 100). 'Dysarthria' is difficult, poorly articulated speech, resulting from interference in the control over the muscles of speech, usually because of damage to a central or peripheral motor nerve. (Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 2006, page 371). 10.3. In Kajal (Supra) a young girl suffered serious injuries resulting in damage to her brain. According to the medical report produced, due to the head injury sustained she was left with a very low IQ and severe weakness in all her four limbs. She had severe hysteria and urinary incontinence. Her disability was assessed as 100%. 10.3. In Kajal (Supra) a young girl suffered serious injuries resulting in damage to her brain. According to the medical report produced, due to the head injury sustained she was left with a very low IQ and severe weakness in all her four limbs. She had severe hysteria and urinary incontinence. Her disability was assessed as 100%. One of the members of the Medical Board who had issued the disability certificate deposed before the Tribunal that as per the assessment done, her I.Q. was less than 20% of a child of her age and her social age was only of a 9 month old child. This meant that Kajal while lying on the bed would grow up to be an adult with all the physical and biological attributes which a woman would get on attaining adulthood, including menstruation etc., but her mind would remain of a 9 month old child and she would never understand what was happening all around her. Hence, in such circumstances, it was held that it was a case where departure had to be made from the normal rule as the pain and suffering suffered by the child was such that no amount of compensation would be able to compensate it. 10.4. Ext.A12 dated 06/06/2016 issued by Dr.A.Marthanda Pillai, MS (Neuro) MNAMS (Neuro) FRCS, Sr.Consultant Neurosurgeon, Ananthapuri Hospitals and Research Institute, Thiruvananthapuram, reads - “ TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN This is to certify that Mr. Vipin 25/M (MRD No: 274967) referred case from Sri Gokulam Medical College with alleged h/o RTA bike vs lorry on 18.04.2016 was admitted in this hospital on 19.04.2016. He was intubated and ventilated. He was diagnosed as RTA - right cerebellar bleed, SAH, fractured right orbit, interparanchymal contusion, fracture both hands, both bones, fractured zygomatic arch, right maxilla and right mandible. He is admitted under the Neurosurgery Department and is being managed conservatively with antibiotics, antiepileptics, antiedema measures, antacids and other supportives. He underwent repair of carotid cavernous fistula under GA. Active line of physiotherapy is also being administered. The patient is improving and in view of his clinical condition he will need prolonged hospitalization. As per the bill dated 06.06.2016, he had incurred a bill amount of INR 16,57,828/-. He will need at least two more months hospitalization and the approximate cost of treatment will be INR 500,000/-.” (Emphasis supplied). 10.5. The patient is improving and in view of his clinical condition he will need prolonged hospitalization. As per the bill dated 06.06.2016, he had incurred a bill amount of INR 16,57,828/-. He will need at least two more months hospitalization and the approximate cost of treatment will be INR 500,000/-.” (Emphasis supplied). 10.5. I.A.No.2/2024 filed by the claim petitioner for receiving additional documents has been allowed and the additional documents have been marked as Ext.A27 series. In pages 127 and 130 of Ext.A27, the certificates issued by the doctors concerned read thus - Page 127 - “07/05/2024 TO WHOM SO EVER IT MAY CONCERN This is to certify that, Mr. Vipin (33 year Male) with MRD No: 274967, was referred from Gokulam Medical College with alleged h/o RTA on 18/4/16 initially treated there. He was diagnosed with right cerebellar hematoma. IV ventricle obstructive hydrocephalus, left temporal and frontal hemorrhagic contusion - S/p decompression craniectomy and evacuation on 19/4/16, fracture right mandible, right maxilla, right orbit, right basi occiput and left temporal bone. Right eye proptosis and corneal ulcers S/p tarsorraphy (9/6/16). Right carotico cavernous fistula S/p CCF coiling (24/5/16), dissection of right ICA/dissection and pseudoaneurysm, left ICA s/p stenting acress CCF, dislocation of right elbow. He is now on long term treatment in OP basis and has to continue regular follow up on long term basis.” (Emphasis supplied). Page 130 - “Date : 18/5/24 To whomsoever it may concern This is to certify that Mr. Vipin 33 years old has been on regular treatment in OP basis due to self falls from 2020. He had a H/o RTA on 2016 and also he had several surgeries since 2016.” 10.6. Unlike in Kajal' s (Supra) case, where there was materials before the Court to show that she was in a vegetative state, there is no such evidence in the case on hand. The certificates of the year 2024 also do not show that he is bedridden or wheel-chair bound. However, the disabilities caused to the claim petitioner is also required to be kept in mind. The certificates of the year 2024 also do not show that he is bedridden or wheel-chair bound. However, the disabilities caused to the claim petitioner is also required to be kept in mind. A Medical Board consisting of 7 experts, namely, Associate Professor, Department of Neurology ; Associate Professor, Department of Ophthalmology ; Additional Professor, Department of Orthopaedics ; Additional Professor, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation ; Associate Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery ; Assistant Professor, Department of ENT and Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry have fixed the disability at 78%, which is quite high. Due to the injuries caused, he has a tendency to fall and has difficulty in speech. PW1, HR Manager, Sabari Distribution Pvt. Ltd., who was examined to prove the income of the claim petitioner, deposed that pursuant to the accident due to poor medical condition, the latter has not reported for work. In the cross-examination, PW1 deposed regarding the nature of the work of the claim petitioner, that is, to visit the shops in his route and take orders. The disabilities caused seem to have certainly affected his functional ability, due to which he had to quit his job. 10.7. In this context it would be apposite to refer to the dictum in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar , (2011)1 SCC 343 which has been followed in Anthony Swami v. M.D., KSRTC , (2020)7 SCC 161 and in many other subsequent decisions, wherein the heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases has been explained: Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment. (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non - pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and / or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). Non - pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and / or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and / or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. The Apex Court has lucidly set out the principles for grant of compensation in cases of permanent physical functional disability as follows: Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on despite the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on despite the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. 10.8. As noticed earlier, there is no materials on record to show the present condition of the claim petitioner. Ext.A12 dated 06/06/2016 says that his condition was improving. Nine years have elapsed since then. There is no evidence to show that contrary to what is stated in Ext.A12, his condition has worsened or deteriorated. In the absence of such materials, it may not be right to fix the disability at 100%. In the light of Ext.X1 and applying the test laid down in Raj Kumar (Supra), I find that the functional disability can also be taken as 78%. As the disability is 78%, 40% of the established income can be added towards loss of future prospects. Hence, the amount of compensation would be Rs. 28,30,464/- [(Rs.12,000 + 40%) x 12 x 18 x 78%]. Loss of earnings 11. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that unlike in the case of Kajal (Supra), where the claimant was in a vegetative state, there is no evidence that the claim petitioner herein is in a vegetative state or completely bedridden or wheelchair bound justifying the Tribunal to adopt the multiplier system. My attention was also drawn to the claim in the petition wherein the claim for 'loss of earnings' was for the period from 18/04/2016 to 18/10/2016, that is, for Rs.1,50,000/- only. My attention was also drawn to the claim in the petition wherein the claim for 'loss of earnings' was for the period from 18/04/2016 to 18/10/2016, that is, for Rs.1,50,000/- only. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claim petitioner relying on Ext.X1 reiterated his arguments that, due to the injuries sustained, the claim petitioner has 100% disability making it impossible for him to work till date after the accident. He is unable to walk without any assistance. He needs a constant attendant as he has a tendency to fall. It is also submitted that due to the disability sustained, the claim petitioner has sustained injuries including fractures several times due to the frequent falls he had. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in adopting the multiplier system while computing compensation under this head, goes the argument. 11.1. I have already held that the facts in Kajal 's case is different from the factual matrix in this case. In the light of the materials on record, this Court is unable to find that the claim petitioner is in the same state as that of Kajal. However, it is seen that due to the injuries sustained, he was unable to continue his job and he had to give up the same. The certificates that are now produced before this court show that he needs regular treatment and continuous follow-up also. That being the position, I find that a period of six years can be taken towards 'loss of earnings', which would be Rs. 8,64,000/- (Rs.12,000/- x 72 months). Bystander expenses 12. An amount of Rs.40,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.24,48,000/- again applying the multiplier system. The learned senior counsel for the third respondent/insurer challenges the amount awarded under this head also. It is true as submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the latter has a tendency to fall and has got difficulty in speech also. But that may not require life-long personal attendance. The Tribunal granted compensation @ Rs.400/- per day for 17 years. The materials on record show that he was hospitalised for a period of 77 days. Ext.A12 says that he would require two more months of hospitalisation. Therefore, towards 'bystander expenses', compensation @ Rs. 450 /- per day can be granted which would be Rs. 61,650/- (Rs.450/- x 77 days + Rs.450/- x 60 days, based on Ext.A12). The materials on record show that he was hospitalised for a period of 77 days. Ext.A12 says that he would require two more months of hospitalisation. Therefore, towards 'bystander expenses', compensation @ Rs. 450 /- per day can be granted which would be Rs. 61,650/- (Rs.450/- x 77 days + Rs.450/- x 60 days, based on Ext.A12). Future personal attendance 13. Though he has not produced any evidence to show that pursuant to the accident he had engaged an attendant, in the light of the disability sustained, he may need assistance for a few years. Hence, I find that a lump sum amount of Rs. 5 lakhs under the head 'future personal attendance' can be given which can be deposited in fixed deposit and the interest therefrom can be used to meet the expenses towards future attendance required. Future medical expenses and physiotherapy treatment 14. Ext.A27 series bills produced show that an amount of Rs.62,063/- had been expended by the claim petitioner. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the third respondent/insurer that an amount of Rs.1 lakh has already been granted and therefore no further amount is due to the claim petitioner. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claim petitioner referred to Ext.A12 in which the doctor says that the approximate cost of treatment would be Rs.5 lakhs. 14.1. As noticed earlier, Ext.A12 dated 06/06/2016 states that the claim petitioner would require at least two more months hospitalisation and the cost would be approximately Rs.5 lakhs. Therefore by this time, he would have already spent money for treatment and obtained bills for the same. The bills produced are Ext.A27 series. Apart from Ext.A27 series, no other documents have been produced. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 62,063 /- can be awarded towards 'future treatment'. 14.2. It is also submitted that Rs.40,000/- awarded towards 'physiotherapy' is too low. However, no materials have been produced to show the expenses incurred under this head. Further, an amount of Rs.1 lakh has already been granted towards 'future treatment' by the Tribunal in addition to Rs.40,000/- for physiotherapy. Therefore, I find that no further amount is required to be awarded. Extra nourishment 15. An amount of Rs.40,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal granted Rs.80,000/- which according to the learned counsel for the claim petitioner is quite low. Further, an amount of Rs.1 lakh has already been granted towards 'future treatment' by the Tribunal in addition to Rs.40,000/- for physiotherapy. Therefore, I find that no further amount is required to be awarded. Extra nourishment 15. An amount of Rs.40,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal granted Rs.80,000/- which according to the learned counsel for the claim petitioner is quite low. It is submitted that from the time of the accident till date, that is, even after the expiry of nine years, he still requires extra nourishment and therefore the amount needs to be appropriately enhanced. In the light of the period of hospitalisation, the number of surgeries and medical interventions he had to undergo, I find that an amount of Rs. 1 lakh under this head would be just and reasonable. Pain and suffering 16. An amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, which is also challenged. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs under this head would be just and reasonable. 17. 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 earnings 1,50,000/- 24,48,000/- 8,64,000/- (Rs.12,000 x 72 months) 2. Partial loss of earning Nil Nil (No modification) 3. Transport to hospital 10,000/- 20,000/- 20,000/- (No modification) 4. Extra nourishment 40,000/- 80,000/- 1,00,000/- 5. Damage to clothing and articles 10,000/- 4,000/-= 4,000/- (No modification) 6. Bystanders expenses 40,000/- 24,48,000/- 61,650/- (Rs.450/- x 77 days + Rs.450/- x 60 days) 7 Future personal attendance 5,00,000/- 8 Treatment expenses and Medicine 25,00,000/- 21,89,000/- 21,89,000/- (No modification) 9 Compensation for the loss of amenities and enjoyment 2,50,000/- 3,00,000/- 3,00,000/- (No modification) 10 Compensation for pain and suffering 5,00,000/- 1,50,000/- 2,00,000/- 11 Compensation for continuing or permanent disability if any 25,00,000/- 24,48,000/- Rs.28,30,464/- [(Rs.12,000 + 40%) x 12 x 18 x 78%] 12 Compensation for loss of earning 10,00,000/- Nil Nil (No modification) 13 Future treatment & Physiotherapy treatment 10,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 40,000/- 1,62,063/- (1,00,000 + 62,063/-) 40,000/- (No modification) Total 80,00,000/- 1,02,27,000/- 72,71,177/- In the result, the appeal and the cross objection are disposed of as above stated by deducting the compensation awarded, by an amount of Rs. 29,55,823/- (total compensation = Rs. 72,71,177/- , that is, Rs.1,02,27,000/- granted by the Tribunal minus Rs. 29,55,823/- (total compensation = Rs. 72,71,177/- , that is, Rs.1,02,27,000/- granted by the Tribunal minus Rs. 29,55,823 /- deducted in appeal). Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.