JUDGMENT : (C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.) The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.723 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Pathanamthitta is the appellant in MACA. No.2289 of 2018. The 3 rd respondent in the said O.P. is the appellant in MACA No.2399 of 2018. (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 3.5.2010. According to the petitioner, on 3.5.2010, at about 5.45 a.m., while he was riding a motorcycle from Adoor to Vadakkedathukavu, a Maruthi car bearing registration No.KL01R-TEMP-1364, driven by the 1 st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motor cycle 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 car. 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.84,51,000/- 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 A31. 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.21,06,720/- and directed the insurer to pay the same. 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred MACA No.2289/2018 and the 3 rd respondent preferred MACA No.2399/2018. 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 in MACA.2289/2018, and Sri. E.M. Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd respondent/appellant in MACA.2399/2018. 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. 9. Heard Sri.A.N. Santhosh, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant in MACA.2289/2018, and Sri. E.M. Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd respondent/appellant in MACA.2399/2018. 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. The petitioner was a plus 2 student at the time of the accident. The learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed the notional income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/-. In support of his arguments he has relied upon some decisions: 11. In the decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Jibin John and Another (in MACA No.759/2015 decided on 4.10.2023), this court has fixed the notional income of a Plus Two student in the year 2008 at Rs.10,000/-. In the decision in Riyas v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd . (In MACA. No.3981/2018 decided on 201.2022), another Bench of this Court fixed the notional income of a Degree Student in the 2014 at Rs.12,000/-. Therefore, he prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner in par with the notional income fixed in the above cases. 12. In the light of 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 year 2010 will come to Rs.7,500/-. In the above circumstances, considering the entire facts, I hold that the notional income of the petitioner can be fixed at Rs.10,000/-. 13. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: “fracture of both bones right leg; and lacerated wound in face” 14. As per Exhibit A17 disability certificate issued by the medical board, the petitioner suffered 50% permanent physical disability. However, after evaluating the evidence of the petitioner as PW1 and also observing the petitioner, the Tribunal, fixed his functional disability at 70%. The learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent seriously disputed the portion of the award fixing the functional disability of the petitioner at 70% instead of 50% as assessed by the Medical Board. However, after evaluating the evidence of the petitioner as PW1 and also observing the petitioner, the Tribunal, fixed his functional disability at 70%. The learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent seriously disputed the portion of the award fixing the functional disability of the petitioner at 70% instead of 50% as assessed by the Medical Board. In Exhibit A17 disability certificate the condition of the petitioner is sated as follows: “Present disabilities are: (1) (L) upper limb-wasting of left hand, 35% (L) shoulder abduction grade abduction-grade -3 flexion & extension grade-4, Elbow flexion grade 4, extension grade 3, grip-0, (2) Right upper limb grade 5 power, (3) Both lower limb grade 5 power, (4) Numbness both upper limb-20%” 15. After examining the petitioner, the Tribunal noted in paragraph 13 of the Award, as follows: “13. The Tribunal has observed the physical condition of the petitioner and noted in the proceedings paper. The petitioner has became very lean after the accident and both his arms are wasted and his left arm was totally paralysed and he had extensive scars in his neck, face and his right shoulder. According to the petitioner, after suffering serious injuries of the accident, he could not continue his study as his arms were paralysed and he lost his mobility. Only after continued treatment and physiotherapy, his right arm had regained mobility. The medical certificates produced by the petitioner would show that he requires future treatment also. It is evident that the disability suffered by the petitioner amounts to permanent functional disability.” 16. On the basis of the above evidence and input received on examining the petitioner, the Tribunal noted that the accident as well as the injuries sustained on account of the accident, the petitioner lost his education as well as his career and it was in the above context, his functional disability was fixed as 70%. During the pendency of the appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced some photographs showing the present condition of the petitioner. On a perusal of the above photographs also, it can be seen that what was observed and noted by the Tribunal in the Award is true and correct. 17. The learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another [ 2011 (1) SCC 343 ], in support of his arguments. 17. The learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another [ 2011 (1) SCC 343 ], in support of his arguments. In the above decision in paragraph 9 to 11, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: “9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%. 10. 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, 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. 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. 11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation (see for example, the decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.- 2010 (10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567 ).” 18. On a perusal of the above decision, it can be seen that what is to be looked into is the impact of the disability on the earning capacity of the victim and not the percentage of permanent disability. In the instant case, the accident as well as the injury occurred when the petitioner was aged 18 and studying in Plus Two. The accident and injury sustained in the incident affected his study and thereafter he could not continue his education and the same has ultimately affected his entire career. In the above circumstances, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the percentage of functional disability of the petitioner, as fixed by the Tribunal at 70%. 19. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 18 years. Therefore, 40% of the monthly income is to be added towards future prospects, as held in the decision in National Insurance Co. 19. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 18 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 18, 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.21,16,800/-. 20. The learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent would argue that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,00,000/- each on the head ‘pain and sufferings’ and loss of amenities and according to him, they are on the higher side. However considering the fact that petitioner sustained very serious injuries in the accident, he was treated as inpatient for a period of 62 days and he suffered 70% functional disability, I hold that the compensation awarded on the head pain and suffering and loss of amenities are not on the higher side and as such and I do not find any grounds to interfere with the same. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the accident and the injuries have seriously affected the marriage prospects of the petitioner and no compensation was awarded on that head. It is true that in this case, at the time of the accident the petitioner was aged 18 years and he was a student of Plus Two. After the accident, he could not continue his education and the same has adversely affected his carrier including marriage prospects. Therefore, I hold that towards marriage prospects, he is entitled to get a reasonable compensation. Considering the facts, I hold that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.60,000/-will be reasonable on the heads 'loss of marriage prospects' and 'loss of studies' respectively. 22. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 23. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.32,13,440/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: Sl. 22. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 23. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.32,13,440/-, 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 Pain and suffering 3,00,000/- 3,00,000/- 2 Transportation 10,000/- 10,000/- 3 Extra nourishment 25,000/- 25,000/- 4 Loss of amenities 3,00,000/- 3,00,000/- 5 Damage to clothing 1,000/- 1,000/- 6 Medical expenses 1,20,640/- 1,20,640/- 7 Bystander expenses 30,000/- 30,000/- 8 Loss of disability 12,70,080/- 21,16,800/- 9 Future treatment 50,000/- 50,000/- 10 Loss of marriage prospects Nil 2,00,000/- 11 Loss of studies Nil 60,000/- Total 21,06,720/- 32,13,440/- Enhanced Rs.11,06,720/- 24. In the result, these Appeals are disposed of directing Respondent No.3 to deposit a total sum of Rs.32,13,440/- (Rupees thirty two lakh thirteen thousand four hundred and forty 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%). 25. On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse 25% of the entire amount, excluding court fee payable, if any, to the petitioner, forthwith. 26. 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 in the name of the petitioner and to permit withdrawal of interest alone for the time being.