JUDGMENT “The scars of road accidents can last a lifetime, but with support and care, victims can heal and rebuild”. 2. Dissatisfied with the awarded sum, this appeal is filed by the claimant, a 20-year-old, 100% permanently disabled youth. The award dated 19.08.2003 in OP(MV) No.1100 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, is under challenge. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal. 3. The case of the appellant/claimant is that on 21.05.2017, while he was travelling in a car bearing Reg.No.KL-8-AS- 9970 along the Kumali - Munnar public road driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, it turned upside down to a valley, whereby he sustained grievous injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.1,95,00,000/-. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the tribunal. The respondent insurer filed written statements, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A12 to A23 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant and Ext.X1 was marked as court exhibit. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.64,71,050/- as compensation under different heads against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal. 5. I have heard Sri.A.R.Nimod, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Smt.Latha Susan Cherian, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant claimed enhancement of the monthly income notionally fixed by the tribunal, arguing that the appellant was a businessman engaged in sale of ‘parda’ and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. It is seen that the tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs.12,000/-. Exts.A21 and A22 reveal that the appellant was running a business in ‘parda’ and was holding a membership in the Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi. Therefore, considering Exts.A21 and A22, I find it just and proper to refix the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 13,000/-. 7. Exts.A21 and A22 reveal that the appellant was running a business in ‘parda’ and was holding a membership in the Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi. Therefore, considering Exts.A21 and A22, I find it just and proper to refix the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 13,000/-. 7. The other main heads under which the appellant sought enhancement of compensation are; (1) Permanent disability, (2) Pain and suffering, (3) Loss of amenities, (4) Bystander expenses and (5) Loss of marriage prospects. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the notional monthly income of the appellant is refixed at Rs.13,000/-, compensation towards permanent disability has to be recalculated. As the appellant, who was only 20 years old at the time of the accident, sustained 100% disability, after adding 40% of the notional income towards future prospects, the amount would be arrived at Rs.18,200/- (13000 + 5200). Thus, following the judgments in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ 2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ 2010(2) KLT 802 (SC)], the appellant will be entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.39,31,200/- (18200 x 12 x 18) towards permanent disability. Hence, there will be an additional amount of Rs. 3,02,400/- under the head of permanent disability. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant, relying on the judgment of the apex court in Jithendran v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Another [ (2022) 15 SCC 620 ], argued that since the appellant is 100% disabled, which is not in dispute, a multiplier method has to be adopted for assessing compensation towards bystander expenses. It is further submitted that in Jithendran (supra), to quantify the expenses for the attendant, the apex court fixed an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month as the bare minimum and the compensation towards bystander expenses was arrived at, by applying the multiplier method taking into account the age of the claimant therein. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer submitted that the tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- towards bystander expenses and personal attendants/attender’s charges respectively, considering that the appellant is 100% disabled. In Jithendran (supra), the functional disability was taken by the apex court as 100% in relation to the earning capacity of the claimant. In the case on hand, the appellant is 100% permanently disabled. In Jithendran (supra), the functional disability was taken by the apex court as 100% in relation to the earning capacity of the claimant. In the case on hand, the appellant is 100% permanently disabled. The appellant was produced before the tribunal on 29.11.2022 and in the impugned award, the condition of the claimant, as explained by the Presiding Officer, is narrated as follows: “Subsequently, the petitioner was produced before this Tribunal on 29.11.2022. On that date the petitioner was produced in an ambulance which was parked at the Car porch area of the court building. After completing the sitting in the forenoon session I have visited the petitioner along with the Bench clerk and Office attendant and also with the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and 3rd respondent. At that time the petitioner was seen lying in a structure inside the ambulance. He was in paraplegic condition and able to lift his hands with much difficulties and pain, but not able to hold the same. His legs are not having sensation and movement of legs are restricted. For urination a urine bag was seen fixed and he is using diaper for storing excreted stool.” The trauma suffered by the appellant cannot be compensated in terms of the money. He will have to live a miserable life till his death. Therefore, a just and reasonable compensation is to be awarded to the appellant towards bystander/attendant expenses by adopting a multiplier method for assessing compensation, following the judgment in Jithendran (supra). Accordingly, I fix an amount of Rs.5,000/- as the monthly expenses for a bystander and the appellant being 20 years old, I adopt ‘18’ as the multiplier. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.10,80,000/- (5000 x 12 x 18). Since the tribunal already awarded Rs.20,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- towards bystander expenses and personal attendants/attender’s charges respectively, totalling to an amount of Rs.5,20,000/-, after deducting the same, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 5,60,000/- towards bystander/attendant expenses. 10. As far as the compensation towards pain & suffering and loss of amenities is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on a judgment of the apex court in Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another [ (2022) 13 SCC 142 ]. 5,60,000/- towards bystander/attendant expenses. 10. As far as the compensation towards pain & suffering and loss of amenities is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on a judgment of the apex court in Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another [ (2022) 13 SCC 142 ]. It is submitted that in Benson George (supra), the apex court awarded a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- each towards pain & suffering and loss of amenities to the claimant therein who suffered 100% disability; and therefore, the appellant herein also is entitled to get a similar compensation. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submitted that the tribunal has awarded a just and reasonable compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards pain & suffering and loss of amenities respectively; and hence, no further enhancement is required. Admittedly, the appellant, who was only 20 years old at the time of the accident, is 100% disabled and is bedridden. He cannot be expected to rely only upon gratuitous services of his well wishers and family members. The pain and suffering suffered by the claimant cannot be compensated in terms of money. Though their dreams are shattered and bodies are broken, their spirits are unbroken. If a considerable amount is awarded as compensation, it will be a solace to the family as well as to the injured. Accordingly, I find that the appellant, who is 100% disabled, is entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- each under the heads, pain & suffering and loss of amenities. Since the tribunal has already awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain & suffering, there will be an additional compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-. Since the tribunal already awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities, there will be an additional compensation of Rs. 9,90,000/-. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was claimed towards loss of marriage prospects, no compensation was awarded by the tribunal, which is unsustainable. Considering that the appellant sustained 100% disability in the accident and is bedridden, I deem it appropriate to award a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects. 12. Considering that the appellant sustained 100% disability in the accident and is bedridden, I deem it appropriate to award a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects. 12. Though the claimant sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads as well, on a perusal of the award passed, I am not inclined to interfere with the same since it appears to be just and reasonable. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows: Sl. No. Head of Claim Amount claimed (in) Amount awarded by the tribunal (in) Modified in appeal (in) Total compensation (in) 1. Loss of earnings 200000 - 2. Transport to 50000 1000 1000 hospital 3. Extra nourishment 45000 30000 30000 4. Damage to clothing and articles etc. 5000 1000 1000 5. Medical and other expenses 1000000 2080250 2080250 6. Bystander expenses 20000 560000 1080000 7. Personal attendants Attende charges 5000000 8. Pain and suffering 1000000 200000 800000 1000000 9. Permanent disability 7000000 3628800 302400 3931200 10. Loss of earning power 1000000 - 11. Loss of amenities 1000000 10000 990000 1000000 12. Future treatment 1000000 - 13. Expense for water bed 100000 14. Expense for wheelchair 100000 - 15. Loss of marriage prospects 500000 200000 200000 16. Mental agony of parents 1500000 - Total 19500000 6471050 2852400 9323450 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.28,52,400/- (Rupees twenty eight lakh fifty two thousand and four hundred only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount together with interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The appellant shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and bank details before the respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellant at the earliest in accordance with law.