JUDGMENT : 1. The Respondent No.3 in O.P.(M.V.) No.228/2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam. is the appellant herein. The petitioner in the O.P is the Cross Objector.(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 25.10.1999. According to the petitioner, on 25.10.1999 at about 8.30 p.m., she was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing registration No.Kl-2E-5563 from north to south through Chakkuvally-Bharanikkavu public road, driven by the 1 st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and when they reached a little south of Mayyathumkara Mosque, the said autorickshaw hit on another autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL2-2410, which came from south to north 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 autorickshaw KL-2E-5563. Respondents 5 and 6 are the driver and owner respectively, of the autorickshaw KL-2-2410. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of both the drivers of the autorickshaws. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.1,00,000/-. 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 testimonies of PW1 and PW2 and documentary evidence Exhibits A1 to A16 and B1. 6. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.92,924/- rounded to Rs.93,000/- and found that there was negligence from the side of both respondents 1 and 4 at the ratio 40:60 and held that respondents 1 to 3, 4 and 6 are jointly and severally liable. 7. Aggrieved by the above award passed by the Tribunal, the Respondent No.3 preferred this appeal and claimant preferred the Cross Objection. 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. George Cherian learned Senior Standing Counsel for the 3 rd respondent and Sri.Anchal C Vijayan,the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/Cross Objector. 10. 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. George Cherian learned Senior Standing Counsel for the 3 rd respondent and Sri.Anchal C Vijayan,the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/Cross Objector. 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 senior counsel for the 3 rd respondent is that though the police charge was against the 4 th respondent, the Tribunal, based on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 found contributory negligence on the part of the 2 nd respondent to an extent of 40%. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both the drivers and as such the finding of the Tribunal to that effect does not call for any interference. Further, he would argue that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. 12. It is true that as per Exhibit A15 final report filed by the police in respect of the crime registered in connection with the above accident, the 4 th respondent was found negligent. The law is well settled that in the absence of any other evidence, the final report filed by the police is prima facie sufficient to prove negligence on the part of the accused in the final report. However, in this case there is evidence of PWs 1 and 2 to the effect that the 1 st respondent also contributed to the accident. At the time of evidence, PW1 and 2 in clear terms deposed that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both the drivers. In the above circumstances, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that there was 40% negligence on the part of the 1 st respondent and 60% negligence on the part of the 4 th respondent. 13. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: 1. Tiny abrasion on the right hand 2. Suspected fracture of right ulna at lower end. There was fracture of both none forearm (R) side. At first, she was admitted Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Karunagappally for a period from 25.10.1999 and discharged on 23.11.1999. 13. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: 1. Tiny abrasion on the right hand 2. Suspected fracture of right ulna at lower end. There was fracture of both none forearm (R) side. At first, she was admitted Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Karunagappally for a period from 25.10.1999 and discharged on 23.11.1999. Open reduction and nailing was done on 26.10.1999. Since the fracture was not properly united, she was referred to Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, where she was admitted on 10.4.2000 and discharged on 19.4.2000. Since the fracture was not united, open reduction and internal fixation was done again at the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. Thereafter, she was again admitted in the Medical College Hospital at Thiruvananthapuram on 17.9.2001 for removal of implant and discharged only on 7.10.2001.Therefore, it is revealed that she was treated as inpatient in different hospital for more than two months and in the meantime she had undergone 3 surgeries also. 14. As per Exhibit A12 disability certificate, the petitioner suffered 8% permanent physical disability. The learned counsel would argue that the petitioner was engaged in dairy sector, in addition to her job as a homemaker. The petitioner claimed a monthly income of Rs.3,000/- but the Tribunal has fixed her income as Rs.2,500/-. At the time of evidence, she was examined as PW1 and she deposed about her income. In the light of the evidence of PW1, I am inclined to accept her monthly income as Rs.3,000/-. 15. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 26 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 17, 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.68,544/-. 16. Towards loss of earning, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.15,000/- being the income for 6 months @ Rs.2,500/-. Considering the fact that the petitioner was treated in different hospitals during a span of about one year, there is merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she could not engaged in her avocation for a period of one year. Considering the fact that the petitioner was treated in different hospitals during a span of about one year, there is merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she could not engaged in her avocation for a period of one year. Therefore, towards 'loss of earning' the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.36,000/- (3000 x 12 months). 17. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.13,600/- was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side. 18. The petitioner sustained very serious injuries in the accident. Considering the fact that she was treated as inpatient for more than two months in different hospitals and she had undergone three surgeries in the meantime, I hold that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the heads ‘pain and sufferings’, 'loss of amenities of life' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.30,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively. 19. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 20. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.1,73,068 /- , 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 earning 15,000/- 36,000/- (3000 x 12) 2 Transportation 1,000/- 1,000/- 3 Extra nourishment 1,000/- 1,000/- 4 Damage to clothing and articles 500/- 500/- 5 Bystander expenses 6,100/- 6,100/- 6 Medical expenses 4,924/- 4,924/- 7 Pain and suffering 10,000/- 30,000/- 8 Compensation for disability 40,800/- 68,544/- 9 Loss of amenities in life 13,600/- 25,000/- Total 92,924/- rounded as 93,000/- 1,73,068/- Enhanced Rs.80,068/- 21. In the result, this Appeal and cross-objection are disposed of directing Respondent No. 3 to deposit a total sum of Rs.1,73,068 /- (Rupees one lakh seventy three thousand sixty eight only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. After payment, the 3 rd respondent is permitted to recover 60% of the compensation from the respondents 5 and 6 in O.P. 22. After payment, the 3 rd respondent is permitted to recover 60% of the compensation from the respondents 5 and 6 in O.P. 22. 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.