JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner in OP (MV) No.345 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur, has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded, for the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident that occurred on 14.04.2012. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: On 14.04.2012 at 10.20 p.m., while the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-42-D-4353, through Kalamassery - Palarivattom road, and when reached near KSEB office, Edappally, a car bearing Registration No.KL-07-AN-7129, driven by the 1 st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and at exorbitant speed which came from the opposite direction, hit on the motorcycle in which the petitioner was on the pillion. Due to the impact of the hit, the petitioner was thrown to the road causing severe injuries on him. 3. The driver and owner of the offending car were arrayed as 1 st and 2 nd respondents respectively, whereas, the insurer of the car was arrayed as 3 rd respondent. 1 st and 2 nd respondents remained ex-parte and the 3 rd respondent insurance company contested the petition by filing a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. However, the 3 rd respondent admitted insurance coverage of the car involved in the accident. 4. I heard Sri. G. Balamuraleedharan, learned counsel for the appellant, and Smt. Deepa George, the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is too meager. It is pointed out that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the petitioner reasonably, for the purpose of calculating compensation under the head of permanent disability. According to the counsel, the Tribunal ought to have given due weightage to the fact that the petitioner was a B.Tech Student having brilliant academic background. It is urged that, the accident will definitely tell much upon the career and future of the injured, and overlooking the same, the Tribunal awarded only a meager amount under the head of permanent disability and future loss of earnings. The counsel further submitted that as the petitioner is evidently affected with a disability of 56%, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, his entire future was shattered. 6. The counsel further submitted that as the petitioner is evidently affected with a disability of 56%, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, his entire future was shattered. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company vehemently opposed contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant. According to the counsel, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is reasonable and in consonance with the injuries sustained by the petitioner. It is further contended that, other than making a bare averment in the petition that the petitioner was a B.Tech Student, no documents from the college where he studied have been produced from the side of the petitioner to substantiate the same. Moreover, there is not even a scrap of paper to show that the petitioner was a brilliant student having a good academic background and he was pursuing the B.Tech course with scholarship. According to the counsel, the income assessed by the Tribunal for the purpose of assessing compensation under the head of permanent disability is just and reasonable and no interference is warranted. 7. I have perused the impugned award as well as the available records. Evidently, no documents, issued from the institution where the petitioner was allegedly studying, are seen produced from the side of the petitioner to show that, he was a B.Tech student at the time of the accident. Anyhow, in the claim petition, there is a specific averment that the petitioner was pursuing B.Tech at FISAT, Angamaly, at the time of the accident. Despite the petitioner’s said categorical assertion, the respondent failed to deny or controvert the same in the written statement. Therefore, I am of the view, that the assertion in the petition that the petitioner was a B.Tech student at the time of the accident, can be treated as admitted as there is no specific denial in the written statement. 8. Moreover, the criminal law in connection with the accident occurred in this case was set in motion on the strength of FIS given by a friend of the injured, who is the 1 st respondent in this case. Notably it was in his bike the petitioner was travelling while the unfortunate accident occurred. 8. Moreover, the criminal law in connection with the accident occurred in this case was set in motion on the strength of FIS given by a friend of the injured, who is the 1 st respondent in this case. Notably it was in his bike the petitioner was travelling while the unfortunate accident occurred. In the said FIS, it is specifically mentioned that the First informant, who is the 1 st respondent herein, was an engineering student and the petitioner who was on the pillion of his bike was his classmate. Of course, the said statement will lend sufficient corroboration to the case of the petitioner that he was a B.Tech student at the time of the accident. In common parlance, we cannot expect that at the time of giving a statement after a shocking incident, the First informant will concoct facts with a malicious intent to raise false claims later. Therefore, the absence of specific denial as well as the statement in the FIS clearly establishes that the petitioner was a B.Tech student at FISAT college at the time of the accident. I am not oblivious that FIS is not substantive evidence to treat the contents therein as true. However, it is trite that the standard of proof required in a petition seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is not as much strict as in criminal cases. The tribunal can even act on the preponderance of probabilities. In short, I am of the considered view that the respondent insurance company could not be heard to say that the petitioner was not a B.Tech student at the time of the accident, especially when there is no specific denial in the written statement. 9. Now, the question to be considered is what is the income that can be assessed for the purpose of determining compensation under the head of permanent disability and loss of earnings. A perusal of the award reveals that the Tribunal assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs.4,000/- notionally. Similarly, no addition is seen made to the income towards future prospects, undermining the fact that the petitioner was affected with a disability of 56%. Therefore, I am of the view that the Tribunal went wrong in accessing the income of the petitioner. It is already found that the petitioner was a B.Tech student at the time of the accident. Similarly, no addition is seen made to the income towards future prospects, undermining the fact that the petitioner was affected with a disability of 56%. Therefore, I am of the view that the Tribunal went wrong in accessing the income of the petitioner. It is already found that the petitioner was a B.Tech student at the time of the accident. Considering the course of study the petitioner was pursuing, his academic background, and the job opportunities he was likely to have in the future, I am of the view that the petitioner’s income can be reasonably fixed at Rs.15,000/- per month. 10. The disability certificate issued from the Medical Board which was marked as Ext.X1 shows that, the petitioner suffered a permanent disability of 56% due to the injuries sustained to him in the accident. Similarly, the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner justifies the assessment of such a percentage of disability. It is evident that the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident will undoubtedly have a profound impact on the petitioner's earning capacity and the impairments and difficulties caused by the petitioner will likely persist throughout his lifetime. Considering the same, I am of the view that an addition of 40% has to be made to the income of the petitioner towards his future prospects. After adding 40%, the income of the petitioner can be fixed at Rs.21,000/-, the petitioner was aged 21 at the time of the accident, in view of the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ 2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)], the multiplier applicable in his case is 18. Hence the petitioner is found entitled to get an amount of Rs.25,40,160/- [Rs.21,000 x 12 x 18 x 56/100]. Already an amount of Rs.4,83,840/- has been awarded by the Tribunal under the head of permanent disability. After deducting the said amount the petitioner is found entitled to get an amount of Rs. 20,56,320/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Only) as additional compensation under the head of permanent disability. 11. Consequent to the revision in the monthly income some corresponding enhancement has to be made towards the loss of earnings also. Highlighting the nature of the injuries, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was in a vegetated state for more than two years and still his condition improved only a little. 11. Consequent to the revision in the monthly income some corresponding enhancement has to be made towards the loss of earnings also. Highlighting the nature of the injuries, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was in a vegetated state for more than two years and still his condition improved only a little. The nature of the injuries sustained to the petitioner itself shows that the petitioner would have been prevented from doing any job or earning any income at least for six months. The Tribunal also took into account a six months period of loss of earnings. I am fully concurring with the same. Hence, the petitioner is found entitled to get an amount of Rs.90,000/- [15,000 x 6] under the head of loss of earnings. After deducting the already awarded amount of Rs.24,000/- under the said head, the petitioner is found entitled to get an amount of Rs.66,000/- (Rupees Sixty Six Thousand only) as additional compensation under the head of loss of earnings. The compensation awarded under other various heads is just and reasonable and no interference is warranted. Therefore, an amount of Rs.21,22,320/- (Rs.20,56,320/- + Rs.66,000/-) has to be added towards the total compensation. In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.21,22,320/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakh Twenty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty only) with interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, after deducting interest for a period of 161 days, i.e., the period of delay in preferring this appeal and as directed by this Court on 03.01.2022 in C.M. Appl. No.1/2018. The respondent insurance company is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest before the tribunal with proportionate costs within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Immediately on the compensation amount being deposited, the tribunal shall, after deducting the liability of the appellant/petitioner towards court fee, disburse the compensation amount to the appellant/petitioner in accordance with law.