JUDGMENT : The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1000/2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, 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 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29.05.2011. According to the petitioner, on 29.05.2011 at about 11.30 p.m., while he was traveling in a car driven by the 1 st respondent along the Aluva-Munnar Public road, the car hit against a electric post. 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.55,24,719/-. 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 documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A12, B1 and C1 were marked. 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.28,57,720/- 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 Sri.A.N Santhosh, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Smt. Latha Susan Cherian, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd respondent. 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid 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 him, at the time of the accident the petitioner was aged 24 and 3 rd year BDS student at Mar Baselios Dental College, Kothanmangalam, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.15000/-. 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 him, at the time of the accident the petitioner was aged 24 and 3 rd year BDS student at Mar Baselios Dental College, Kothanmangalam, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.15000/-. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the notional income of the petitioner, fixed by the tribunal at Rs.15,000/- is on the lower side. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent would argue that the notional income fixed by the tribunal is just and reasonable. 12. In the decision in Ramakrishnapilla and others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd [ 2015 (3) KLJ 750 ], this Court has fixed the notional income of a 4 th semester B.Tech student in the accident of the year 2006 at Rs.12,000/-. In the decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd v. Fathima Zuhara [Manu/KE/1087/2016], in the case of a 2 nd year Engineering student involved in an accident in the year 2005, this court has fixed notional income at Rs.12,000/-. In the decision in Nanu. K and others v. National Insurance Co.Ltd [MACA 565/ 2019], in the case of a final engineering student involved in an accident in the year 2015, the notional income was fixed by this Court at Rs.22,000/-. In the instant case the petitioner was a 3rd year BDS student. It is also revealed that, because of the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner has to discontinue his BDS course. In the above circumstances, considering the entire facts, I hold that the notional income of the petitioner can be fixed at Rs. 18,000/-. 13. In the accident, as per Ext.A8 certificate, the petitioner sustained the following injuries: 1. has bony defect on the left forehead 2. has personality changes 3. behavioural disturbances in the form of emotion outbursts and tem per tantrums 4. Decreased memory and learning disability 5. had to discontinue his studies for BDS due to learning disability secondary to head injury 6. has obesity and acquired diabetics due to decreased mobility secondary to head injury 7. has impaired vision and hearing 8. slurring of speech 14. behavioural disturbances in the form of emotion outbursts and tem per tantrums 4. Decreased memory and learning disability 5. had to discontinue his studies for BDS due to learning disability secondary to head injury 6. has obesity and acquired diabetics due to decreased mobility secondary to head injury 7. has impaired vision and hearing 8. slurring of speech 14. On a perusal of Ext.A8 discharge summary, it is revealed that, the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the disability suffered by him has decreased his memory, resulted in learning disability and also lead to obesity, diabetics which also affect his vision, hearing and his behavioural and emotional outbursts. Ext. C1 disability certificate shows that the petitioner suffered 65% permanent physical disability. It was issued by the medical board of Government Medical College Hospital, Ernakulam. The Tribunal, has accepted the permanent physical disability of the petitioner as such and hence, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the same. Therefore, the permanent physical disability of the petitioner is accepted as 65%, as fixed by the Tribunal. 15. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 24 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.35,38,080/-. 16. Towards loss of studies, the tribunal has awarded Rs.100000/-. Since his notional income has been re-fixed at Rs.18000/-, the compensation for loss of studies is enhanced to Rs.125000/-. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the injuries sustained in the accident affected his marriage prospects, and he is still unmarried. At the same time, he also submitted that the petitioner can walk without much difficulty but he cannot travel to distant places as he may not be able to recollect his memory and to return back home. In the above circumstances, though the petitioner may not require the assistance of a full time bystander, I hold that because of his decreased memory, learning disability, obesity, diabetics, impaired vision, hearing deficiency, behavioural and emotional outbursts etc., towards bystander expenses a consolidated amount can be awarded. In the above circumstances, though the petitioner may not require the assistance of a full time bystander, I hold that because of his decreased memory, learning disability, obesity, diabetics, impaired vision, hearing deficiency, behavioural and emotional outbursts etc., towards bystander expenses a consolidated amount can be awarded. Considering the facts, I hold that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- will be a reasonable compensation on the head bystander expenses. 18. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.85,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs. 65,000/- was awarded, and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.10,400/- was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side. 19. The petitioner was treated as inpatient for a total period 104 days. Considering the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the percentage of disability suffered by him, I hold that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the heads ‘pain and sufferings’ , 'loss of amenities of life' and 'extra nourishment' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/-, 3,00,000/- and 25,000/- respectively. 20. The tribunal has not awarded any compensation on the head loss of marriage prospects. Considering the fact that, the accident occurred when the petitioner was aged 24 years and he was studying for BDS course and the accident has affected her entire career as also his marriage prospects, I hold that towards loss of marriage prospects he is entitled to get reasonable compensation. I hold that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- can be awarded on the head of loss marriage prospects. 21. The petitioner has produced medical bills worth Rs. 49,662/-, expended after the award. Since the said claim is supported by medical bills, towards additional medical expenses, a sum of Rs. 49,662/- is awarded. For the said amount interest will carry only from the date of award. Since the petitioner is still under treatment, I hold that the further sum of Rs. 50,000/- can be awarded towards future medical expenses. 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 petitioner/ appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.53,30,800/-, 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 petitioner/ appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.53,30,800/-, 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 studies 1,00,000/- 1,25,000/- 2 Pain and sufferings 85,000/- 3,00,000/- 3 Loss of amenities 65,000/- 3,00,000/- 4 Bystander expenses 15,600/- 2,00,000/- 5 Extra nourishment charges 10,400/- 25,000/- 6 Transportation charges 6000/- 6000/- 7 Medical treatment charges 5,86,720/- 586720 8 Compensation for permanent disability 19,89,000/- 35,38,080/- 9 Marriage prospects ---- 2,00,000/- 10 Future medical expenses 50000 Total 28,57,720/- 53,30,800/- Enhanced amount 24,73,080/- 24. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and 3 rd respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.53,24,800/- (Rupees Fifty three lakhs twenty four thousand eight hundred Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, excluding interest for a period of 460 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. 25. 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.