JUDGMENT : C.S. SUDHA, J. This 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.396/2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 24/11/2018. The respondent herein is the claim petitioner 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 17/11/2013 at 03:30 p.m. he was pillion riding on motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-22/1431 from Chanthavila to Pothencode side and when he reached the road near Kattaikonam junction, car bearing registration no.KL-01/BD-1101 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction, and knocked down the motorcycle, as a result of which he sustained injuries. A sum of Rs.30,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads. 3. The second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. 4. Though respondents 1 and 3 appeared through counsel, no written statement was filed. 5. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No oral or documentary evidence adduced from the side of the respondents. 6. The Tribunal on consideration of the 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.46,98,620/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. 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 sides9. The main grievance of the third respondent/insurer is that the amount of Rs.25 lakhs awarded for future treatment is exorbitant in the light of the claim made in the petition for Rs.2 lakhs. It was also submitted that the dictum in Minor Basid v. Sanu, 2018(2) KLT 453 , relied on by the Tribunal is not applicable to the facts of the present case and hence the amount needs to be proportionately reduced. It was also submitted that the dictum in Minor Basid v. Sanu, 2018(2) KLT 453 , relied on by the Tribunal is not applicable to the facts of the present case and hence the amount needs to be proportionately reduced. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that pursuant to the accident, the claimant is in a paraplegic state and the disability is 80%. Hence the Tribunal was justified in awarding the amount. In support of his argument, reference was made to the dictum in Jyothis Raj Krishna v. Sunny George, 2025(1) KHC 348 . 9.1. In Basid (Supra), the claimant, six years of age at the time of the accident, was quite seriously injured with deep cerebral damage, pushing him into a comatose stage for a very prolonged time in hospitals. The medical reports showed that he sustained head injury, brain stem injury, haemorrhagic contusion in both thalami and in the brain stem, subarachnoid haemorrhage, intraventricular bleed and extracranial soft tissue swelling in the left frontal and left parietal region. The effect of all these injuries was that he went into a comatose state without any noticeable improvement thereafter, suffering from paraplegia and 100% physical impairment. The neurological disability was assessed at 100%. Thus, effectively he remained in a vegetative state. He continued to be in the same debilitating physical situation he was pushed into after the accident even after about 11 years or so. The young boy remained virtually lifeless for more than eleven years without being able to move any part of his body in a totally vegetative stage and he was under the constant care of his mother, every moment of the day, since he required assistance for every bodily and physical activity, being unable to do anything on his own. To gauge the physiological and psychological condition of the claimant, on the orders of this court, a competent team of doctors visited the child at his residence. On clinical examination, the child was seen to be in a minimally conscious state with roving eye movements, tachypnea, chest crepitations, opisthotonus posturing, completely bedridden with limb contractures and complete incontinence of bowel and bladder. He required assistance for all daily activities, feeding, grooming, dressing and other activities. He needed full time nursing care, medication and physiotherapy. On clinical examination, the child was seen to be in a minimally conscious state with roving eye movements, tachypnea, chest crepitations, opisthotonus posturing, completely bedridden with limb contractures and complete incontinence of bowel and bladder. He required assistance for all daily activities, feeding, grooming, dressing and other activities. He needed full time nursing care, medication and physiotherapy. Repeated hospital visit once in 2-3 months for recurrent respiratory infection and other illness was required. Permanent whole-body disability because of the accident was assessed as100%. The medical report also stated that the average monthly expenditure for his medical care would be Rs.25,000/-. It was found that even going by the latest medical report, there was no hope for the child attaining even a semblance of dignified life as his condition had only worsened during the period of 11 years after the accident. To ensure that a minimum of Rs.25,000/- was received by the family to defray the medical expenses of the victim in future and taking into account the prevailing rates of interest offered by banks and other financial institutions, an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- was awarded, which was directed to be invested in fixed deposits to generate the requisite amount. 9.2. Jyothis Raj Krishna (Supra) was a case of a five year old who even after 8 years of accident, continued to be in a state of paraparesis. It was canvassed on behalf of the claimant therein that attendant charges was to be calculated in terms of the notional income fixed by the court applying the provisions under the Minimum Wages Act, 1942. A learned single Judge of this Court, noting that minimum wages fixed by the State of Kerala is always the highest in the country, held that it would not be possible to find that for fixing the notional income, reliance has to be placed on the notification issued under the provisions of the aforesaid Act for fixing the attendant charges as it may lead to an anomalous situation where the compensation to be awarded was likely to go out of proportion. Taking into account the facts and circumstances in the said case, it was held that an amount of Rs.10,500/- can be taken for calculating the attendant charges for the child who, due to the accident was forced to confine to the bed probably for the rest of his life. 9.3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances in the said case, it was held that an amount of Rs.10,500/- can be taken for calculating the attendant charges for the child who, due to the accident was forced to confine to the bed probably for the rest of his life. 9.3. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer, there was ample materials on record before the Court to show the condition of the minor child in Basid (Supra). However, no such evidence is available in the case on hand. No documents have been produced to show the present condition of the claimant or regarding the expenses incurred for the future treatment of the claim petitioner. The incident took place on 17/11/2013. Nearly 12 years have passed since the accident. However no documents have been produced to show the expenses incurred during this period or regarding the present condition of the claim petitioner. Ext.A4 discharge summary dated 07/12/2013 reads thus- “FINAL DIAGNOSIS TRAUMATIC PARAPLEGIA - #D10, # 8tH 9th RIB CLINICAL FEATURES Alleged h/o RTA, followed by not able to move both the lower limb. Patient was diagnosed to have #D10. traumatic paraplegia – pedicle screw fixation done for D8 to D11. Post op period uneventful. WI- clean alternate suture removal done, hence discharged with following advice. TREATMENT GIVEN AND COURSE IN HOSPITAL PEDICLE SCREW FIXATION UNDER GA ON 28/11/13 FOLLOW UP Review in OR IV OPD on 21/12/13 DISCHARGE ADVICE 1. T. Norflox 1-0-1 x 7 days 2. T. Pantop 40mg 1-0-1 x 7 days 3. Freequent change of position " (Emphasis supplied) Ext.A8 disability certificate reads thus - “ STANDING DISABILITY ASSESSMENT BOARD CERTIFICATE Certified that we the members of the Standing Disability Assessment Board at General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram examined Sri./Smt.Anil Kumar Son/daughter of Appu K. residing at Kunnumporathu, Puthuval Puthenveedu Village, Aerupaara Taluk Trivandrum District Trivandrum and found that he/she is Orthopedics/ENT/Psychiatry/Ophthalmic/handicapped by Traumatic paraplegia. The Partial/Permanent/Temporary/Disability is 80% (words eighty percentage) Belongs to MILD/MODERATE/SERVER/TOTAL Category.” In addition Ext.A5 series which are the outpatient records, Medical College hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, during the period from 2013 till 2016 show that it is a case of traumatic spastic complete paraplegia (OP record dated 12/09/2016). The Partial/Permanent/Temporary/Disability is 80% (words eighty percentage) Belongs to MILD/MODERATE/SERVER/TOTAL Category.” In addition Ext.A5 series which are the outpatient records, Medical College hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, during the period from 2013 till 2016 show that it is a case of traumatic spastic complete paraplegia (OP record dated 12/09/2016). The relevant portion of Ext.A6 discharge card, Directorate of Medical Education, Medical College hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 19/07/2016 reads - “Complaints and Findings TRAUMATIC SPASTIC COMPLETE PARAPLEGIA NLI -T10 GRADE -2 Pressure ULCER ® ISCHIAL TUBEROSITY Admitted for -bladder evaluation and …...SICC. C/o: Weakness of both lower limbs since 3 years. Bowel & Bladder complaint – 3 years. Wound over ® buttock. Past H/o: No H/o surgeries in past- no H/o HT/DM/Cardiac disorder in past. Personal H/o: Occupation and married since 6 mon. alcoholic and smoker, sleep-decreased appetite-decreased bladder – cathedralised, Bowel-constipated once/4 day. Sexual H/o: Psychogenic erections P ejaculation.” (Emphasis supplied) In cases of paraplegia, the underlying damage is often irreversible, though its impact can be managed through rehabilitation, adaptive strategies, assistive technologies and medical interventions to improve mobility and quality of life. The accident in Jyothis Raj Krishna (Supra) took place in the year 2016. The accident in this case occurred on 17/11/2013. The accident in Minor Basid 's case occurred in the year 2006. Though the materials on record do not show that the condition of the claim petitioner herein is the same as the condition of the child in Minor Basid (Supra), the permanent disability of the claim petitioner in this case is 80% which is quite high and hence he will certainly require money for meeting his future treatment expenses. Going by the dictum in Jyothis Raj Krishna (Supra), relied on by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner, the amount of compensation he is entitled to, would be Rs. 17,13,600 /- (Rs.10,500/- x 12 x 17 x 80/100). 10. 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 for 10 months 1,20,000/- 91,000/- 91,000/- (No modification) 2. Transport to hospital 10,000/- 7,500/- 7,500/- (No modification) 3. Extra nourishment 5,000/- 5,000/- 5,000/- (No modification) 4. Damages to clothing and other articles 10,000/- 500/- 500/- (No modification) 5. Medicine cum treatment 5,00,000/- 8,500/- 8,500/- (No modification) 6. Bystanders expenses 10,000/- 5,500/- 5,500/- (No modification) 7. Loss of earnings for 10 months 1,20,000/- 91,000/- 91,000/- (No modification) 2. Transport to hospital 10,000/- 7,500/- 7,500/- (No modification) 3. Extra nourishment 5,000/- 5,000/- 5,000/- (No modification) 4. Damages to clothing and other articles 10,000/- 500/- 500/- (No modification) 5. Medicine cum treatment 5,00,000/- 8,500/- 8,500/- (No modification) 6. Bystanders expenses 10,000/- 5,500/- 5,500/- (No modification) 7. Compensation for future treatment 2,00,000/- 25,00,000/- Rs.17,13,600/- (Rs.10,500/- x 12 x 17 x 80/100) 8. Compensation for pain and sufferings 2,00,000/- 1,50,000/- 1,50,000/- (No modification) 9. Compensation for continuing or permanent disability, if any 50,000/- 14,85,120/- 14,85,120/- (No modification) 10 Compensation for the loss of earning power 15,00,000/- Nil Nil (No modification) 11 Compensation for mental shock, shortened expectations in life, loss of amenities in life etc. 8,00,000/- 4,45,500/- 4,45,500/- (No modification) Total 34,05,000/- (Claim is limited to 30,00,000/- only) 46,98,620/- 39,12,220/- In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by deducting the compensation by an amount of Rs. 7,86,400/- (total compensation is Rs. 39,12,220 /- that is, Rs.46,98,620/- granted by the Tribunal minus Rs. 7,86,400 /- deducted in appeal). Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.