JUDGMENT BASANT BALAJI, J. In this appeal, the appellant, who was the petitioner in O.P. (M.V.) No.517/2016 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Muvattupuzha, filed an original petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to claim compensation for injuries he sustained in a motor vehicle accident. 2. On February 10, 2016, at approximately 10:30 p.m., the appellant was driving a TATA Ace (registration No. KL-11-AJ-8117) on the Muvattupuzha-Ernakulam road. Upon reaching Kadathipallithazham, a tanker lorry (registration No. KL-54-A-7480), which was allegedly driven rashly and negligently by the first respondent, collided with his vehicle. This collision caused serious injuries to the appellant, who was subsequently hospitalized. He was first treated as an inpatient for 21 days at the MOSC Medical College Hospital, Kolenchery, and then for an additional 23 days at Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode. The appellant attributes the accident to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. The second and third respondents are identified as the owner and insurer of the tanker lorry, respectively. As a result, the appellant claimed compensation of Rs. 75,00,000 for his injuries. 3. The first and second respondents did not participate in the proceedings, while the third respondent, the insurer, filed a written statement. The insurer admitted the existence of a policy for the tanker lorry but denied the negligence attributed to the first respondent, arguing that the appellant was therefore not entitled to compensation. The insurer also challenged the appellant's claimed income and other compensation heads, deeming the total claim exorbitant. After reviewing evidence presented as Exts.A1 to A13 and C1, the Tribunal concluded that the accident was indeed caused by the first respondent's negligence. It then calculated the compensation, awarding a total of Rs.34,68,500 with 7% interest from June 1, 2016, until realization, excluding a portion of Rs.1,00,000 for future prospects. Dissatisfied with the awarded compensation, the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. Heard Sri.Elson Simon, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.K.C.Santhoshkumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company. 5. The appellant's counsel stated that the appellant, a 22-year-old self- employed driver, earned a monthly income of Rs. 30,000/-. Ext. A9, a copy of his driving license, confirmed he was licensed to drive both transport and non-transport vehicles, a fact that was not disputed. 5. The appellant's counsel stated that the appellant, a 22-year-old self- employed driver, earned a monthly income of Rs. 30,000/-. Ext. A9, a copy of his driving license, confirmed he was licensed to drive both transport and non-transport vehicles, a fact that was not disputed. While the Tribunal acknowledged his profession as a driver was proven, it noted that there was no evidence presented by the appellant to substantiate the claimed monthly income of Rs. 30,000/-. 6. The respondent insurance company's counsel contended that the appellant's monthly income was no more than Rs. 8,000/-. While the Tribunal notionally fixed the income at Rs. 10,000/-, the court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Manusha Sreekumar and Others v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [2022 (17) SC 321], concluded that the appellant's income should be higher. That judgment referenced Schedule B-Category III of the Kerala Fair Wages Act, which classifies drivers as skilled workers. Based on a notification effective from January 1, 2015, the minimum monthly pay for a driver in Kerala was set at Rs.15,600/-. Since the appellant's profession as a driver was already established, the court decided to notionally fix his monthly income at Rs. 15,600/-. 7. According to Ext. C1, the Medical Board's Disability Certificate, the appellant has an 80% disability due to injuries he sustained. These injuries include a brain stem contusion, bilateral thalamic contusion, left basal ganglia contusion, poly-trauma-liver laceration, moderate hemoperitoneum, comminuted fracture of the middle third of the left femur, fracture of the middle third of both bones in his right leg, contusion and abrasion on his right lower chest, abrasion on his right forehead, and liver injury. Based on this 80% disability and a notional monthly income of Rs. 10,000/-, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 17,28,000/- for permanent disability. 8. According to the appellant, at the time of the accident, he was aged 22- years and was a driver by profession, a fact that was already proven before the Tribunal. The medical board assessed his whole-body disability at 80%. However, given his profession, his functional disability is to be considered as 100% since he can no longer drive or perform any job requiring physical exertion. The petitioner sustained a fracture of the left femur, right femur, and the distal part of both bones in his right leg, along with a liver injury and a brain stem injury. However, given his profession, his functional disability is to be considered as 100% since he can no longer drive or perform any job requiring physical exertion. The petitioner sustained a fracture of the left femur, right femur, and the distal part of both bones in his right leg, along with a liver injury and a brain stem injury. When the Tribunal saw him in person, he was in a wheelchair, which highlighted the severity of his injuries and the fact that his career as a driver had been permanently ended. 9. In Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Others [2019 AIR (SC) 128], the Supreme Court addressed a similar case involving an electric car driver who suffered a permanent 75% disability in an accident. The driver, aged 23, claimed a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal initially set compensation for permanent disability based on a 75% functional disability and a notional income of Rs.6,000/-. However, the High Court increased the functional disability to 100% of his earning capacity and included a 50% allowance for future prospects. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, acknowledging that the driver was no longer able to work as a driver, perform manual labour, or engage in agricultural work for his livelihood. This precedent is directly relevant to the present case, as the present appellant has also been rendered completely incapacitated and unable to earn a living. 10. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Others , the Supreme Court provided a detailed analysis of the relationship between physical disability resulting from an accident and the subsequent loss of earning capacity, as follows:- “ 11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent 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 terms 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 the 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. We may, however, note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the 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. and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.) * * * * * * * 13. 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 in spite of 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." 11. Based on the case of Sarnam Singh v. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 498] , a physical disability's impact must be assessed relative to the injured person's profession. The same injury can affect individuals differently. For instance, a farmer or a rickshaw puller who loses a leg may be completely unable to work, while the same injury would have a lesser impact on someone with a desk job. Therefore, if an accident-related disability prevents a worker from performing any job they were capable of doing at the time of the incident, the disability should be considered total for the purpose of awarding compensation. (See also Indra Bai v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Another [2023 Live Law (SC) 543]. Therefore, if an accident-related disability prevents a worker from performing any job they were capable of doing at the time of the incident, the disability should be considered total for the purpose of awarding compensation. (See also Indra Bai v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Another [2023 Live Law (SC) 543]. Hence, in Govind Yadav v. the New India Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2011) 10 SCC 683 ], K.Suresh v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. [ (2012) 12 SCC 274 ], Raj Kumar (supra), Sarnam Singh (supra) and Indra Bai (supra) the Apex Court held that refixing the assessment regarding the functional disability as 100%, is correct. 12. Turning to the present case, the appellant is a 22-year-old driver of a goods vehicle. The medical board assessed his permanent disability at 80%. However, based on the precedents discussed and the nature of his profession, his functional disability is more accurately 100%. Given that he can no longer work as a driver or perform any other physically demanding job, his earning capacity is completely lost. I have already determined his monthly income to be Rs.15,600/-, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Manusha Sreekumar (supra). Since he was self-employed and under 40, he is also entitled to 40% for future prospects, as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay Sethi [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ]. This recalculates his monthly income to Rs.21,840/- (Rs.15,600/- + 40% of Rs.15,600/-). With a proper multiplier of 18, the compensation for his permanent disability can now be calculated as Rs.47,17,440/- (21,840 x 12 x 18 x 100/100). 13. Regarding the claim for loss of amenities, the appellant sought Rs.10,00,000/-, but the Tribunal only awarded Rs.1,00,000/-. Considering the nature of his injuries—including those to his brain stem, liver, and multiple fractures—the appellant, a 22-year-old with a long life ahead, will be unable to enjoy life's normal amenities. Given these circumstances, his age and injuries, the initial award is considered too low. Therefore, the compensation under the head is enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/-. 14. The appellant also raised a claim for attendant charges. While the Tribunal only awarded Rs.13,200/- for 44 days of hospitalization at a rate of Rs.300/- per day, this does not account for the appellant's long-term needs. A person with an 80% whole-body disability will require assistance with daily tasks for the rest of his life. 14. The appellant also raised a claim for attendant charges. While the Tribunal only awarded Rs.13,200/- for 44 days of hospitalization at a rate of Rs.300/- per day, this does not account for the appellant's long-term needs. A person with an 80% whole-body disability will require assistance with daily tasks for the rest of his life. Although the Supreme Court, in Jithendran v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Another [ (2022) 15 SCC 620 ], suggested a multiplier method for assessing bystander expenses in cases of 100% disability, I am not applying that method here, even though the appellant's functional disability is 100%. Instead, considering that the appellant will need a full-time attendant for the rest of his life, I am awarding a fixed sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for attendant charges. 15. For pain and suffering, the appellant claimed Rs.20,00,000/-, but the Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,00,000/-. The appellant endured a 44-day hospital stay and continues to require future treatment, as confirmed by a certificate from MOSC Medical College Hospital. At just 22 years old, he sustained severe injuries, including to his brain stem and liver, which will cause a lifetime of physical and mental anguish. His dreams have been shattered, and he can only watch his peers lead normal lives. While money can never fully compensate for such suffering, a reasonable amount must be awarded. The Tribunal's award of Rs.1,00,000/- is clearly insufficient. Therefore, an additional sum of Rs.9,00,000/-, for a total of Rs.10,00,000/-, is granted for pain and suffering to provide some solace. 16. For the appellant's claim of Rs.10,00,000/- for loss of marriage prospects, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,00,000/-. As the accident has shattered his life and denied him the enjoyments of married life that his peers experience, the compensation under this head is increased to Rs.5,00,000/- 17. Accordingly, the following enhancements are made to the award passed by the Tribunal:- Sl. No. Head of Claim Amount awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Amount awarded in appeal (Rs.) 1. For continuing and permanent disability 17,28,000/- 47,17,440/- 2. Loss of amenities and enjoyments 1,00,000/- 5,00,000/- 3. Attendance charges 13,200/- 5,00,000/- 4. Compensation for Pain and Suffering 1,00,000/- 10,00,000/- 5. Loss of marriage prospects 2,00,000/- 5,00,000/- Total 21,41,200/- 72,17,440/- Amount enhanced .. 72,17,440 - 21,41,200 = 50,76,240/- 16. For continuing and permanent disability 17,28,000/- 47,17,440/- 2. Loss of amenities and enjoyments 1,00,000/- 5,00,000/- 3. Attendance charges 13,200/- 5,00,000/- 4. Compensation for Pain and Suffering 1,00,000/- 10,00,000/- 5. Loss of marriage prospects 2,00,000/- 5,00,000/- Total 21,41,200/- 72,17,440/- Amount enhanced .. 72,17,440 - 21,41,200 = 50,76,240/- 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed, and the appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.50,76,240/- (Rupees Fifty lakh seventy six thousand two hundred forty only) over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 7%, except for the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- awarded under the head of attendant charges from 01.06.2016 till realization of the amount from the 3 rd Respondent. 17. All other findings entered by the Tribunal stand confirmed. The Insurance Company shall pay interest for the amounts awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award and for the enhanced amounts at the rate of 7% from the date of the petition. If any amounts have already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. The claimant shall produce the details of the bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, and the amount shall be transferred to the bank account directly through NEFT/RTGS mode within a period of one month thereafter. If the bank account is not given within the time stipulated, it is made clear that no interest shall run on the enhanced amount after the period stipulated by this Court. However, if the insurance company fails to deposit the amount as directed, interest on the enhanced amount shall also run at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of the petition.