JUDGMENT : EASWARAN S., J. This appeal arises out of the award passed by the Tribunal in O.P. (MV) No. 1186/2016 on the files of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. In MACA No. 14 of 2021 the claimant has come up in appeal dissatisfied the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal whereas MACA No. 1924 of 2021 is preferred by the driver of the vehicle questioning the grant of compensation. It is pertinent to mention that in the present case there is no insurance coverage for the offending vehicle and therefore the owner and driver of the offending vehicle have been mulcted with the liability to pay the entire compensation. 2. The facts in brief of the disposed case are as follows. The appellant/claimant on 11.11.2015, while riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No. KL-46-H-2016 through Thrissur – Chammannur public road and when he reached near Peramangalam Village office at about 8.30 am a Maruthi Baleno Car bearing Reg.No. KL-08-AK-8309 driven by the appellant in MACA No. 1924 of 2021 came in a rash and negligent manner in terrific speeds jumped over the divider of the road ran through the wrong side and collided with the Car bearing Reg. No. KL-8-AT-8388 which was proceeding in front of the claimant’s motorcycle. Due to the impact of the collision both the cars were turned around and hit the claimant’s motorcycle. The Claimant was thus thrown on to the road and sustained severe injuries. The claimant contended that he was a tuition teacher drawing a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. In support of his contention, Exts. A1 to A29 documents were produced. The claimant also produced Ext.A21 Disability Certificate. The claimant was examined as PW1 and PW2 was examined to prove the contents of Ext.A21. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence found that the claimant was not successful in proving the income as claimed in the claim petition and accordingly, proceeded to fix the income notionally at Rs.10,000/- and fixed the disability as such under Ext.A21 and granted the following compensation. Sl. No. Head of Claim Amount claimed (in Rupees) Amount awarded (in Rupees) 1. Loss of earning (Total) 1,40,000 1,00,000 2. Medical expenses 20,00,000 5,84,345 3. Bystander expenses -- 3,000 4. Transportation expenses 1,00,000 15,000 5. Extra nourishment 1,00,000 25,000 6. Damage to clothing etc. 5,000 1,000 7. Pain and suffering 3,00,000 75,000 8. Compensation for continuing or permanent disability 25,00,000 16,63,200 9. Loss of earning (Total) 1,40,000 1,00,000 2. Medical expenses 20,00,000 5,84,345 3. Bystander expenses -- 3,000 4. Transportation expenses 1,00,000 15,000 5. Extra nourishment 1,00,000 25,000 6. Damage to clothing etc. 5,000 1,000 7. Pain and suffering 3,00,000 75,000 8. Compensation for continuing or permanent disability 25,00,000 16,63,200 9. Compensation for the loss of earning power 20,00,000 -- 10. Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life 3,00,000 70,000 11. Compensation for the shortened expectancy of life 10,00,000 --- 12. Personal attendant 1,00,000 50,000 13. Compensation for disfigurement 10,00,000 20,000 14. Compensation for loss of marriage prospects -- 25,000 Total Claim limits to 95,45,000 90,00,000 26,31,545 3. As stated above, since the vehicle in question did not have an insurance, the owner of the vehicle and the appellant in MACA No. 1924 of 2021 was directed to pay the entire amount of compensation. 4. Heard, Sri. Nimod A.R., learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ claimant in MACA No.14/2021 and Smt K.A.Sanjeetha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/1 st respondent in MACA No. 1924 of 2021. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant/appellant contended that the Tribunal erred egregiously in fixing the notional income of claimant at Rs.10,000/-. In the nature of disability suffered by the claimant, it was not possible for the Tribunal to have fixed the percentage of disability at 55%. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar [(2022) 13 SCC 790]. The learned counsel further placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in S unita Tokas & Anr. v. New India Insurance Company Ltd. and Another [ AIR 2019 SC 3921 ] to contend for the preposition that the notional income of a student and an outstanding sports person has to be fixed appropriately. He further pointed out that the Tribunal though accepted Exts.A8 and A23 Medical bills did not grant the amount of Rs.8,39,926/- covered by these two bills. Still further it is pointed out that though an amount of Rs.80,000/- was fixed as a transportation charges while granting the final compensation the same is not included. Lastly, it is pointed out that in the nature of disability suffered by the appellant wherein viz. he had suffered complete brachial plexus injury of the right upper limb, the Tribunal could not have fixed the disability at 55%. 6. Lastly, it is pointed out that in the nature of disability suffered by the appellant wherein viz. he had suffered complete brachial plexus injury of the right upper limb, the Tribunal could not have fixed the disability at 55%. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel Smt K.A.Sanjeetha, appearing for the appellant in MACA No.1924 of 2021 (owner/driver) pointed out that the disability fixed by the doctor under Ext.A21 is not sacrosanct. I.A. No. 5/2020 was filed by the appellant or by the owner to refer the claimant to the medical board. No orders were passed by the tribunal on the said application. Still further it is pointed out that the tribunal disposed of the claim petition in a hasty manner thereby preventing the owner and the driver from adducing evidence and therefore, no effective opportunity was granted by the tribunal. Still further it is pointed out that there is no allegation that the accident was caused as a direct act of the offending vehicle driven by the appellant herein. The tribunal ought to have found contributory negligence on the driver of the vehicle which was in front of the motorcycle ridden by the claimant. The tribunal failed to apply its mind in proper perspective while considering the claim petition. The tribunal ought to have found that no evidence was adduced by the claimant to prove that he was running a tuition centre and thus erred in fixing the notional income. Finally it is pointed out that had the tribunal referred the claimant to the medical board, the percentage of disability would have come out on a lesser side and therefore the finding of the Tribunal cannot be accepted. 7. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the bar and perused the records. 8. Before going into the contention of the claimant for enhancement of compensation, this Court deems it appropriate to deal with the appeal preferred by the driver of the vehicle. The grounds on which the challenge is raised against the award of the Tribunal is primarily on the ground that the assessment of the disability of the Tribunal is improper. It is pertinent to mention that Ext.A21 Disability Certificate was proved through a known process of law by examining PW2, the doctor who issued the same. The grounds on which the challenge is raised against the award of the Tribunal is primarily on the ground that the assessment of the disability of the Tribunal is improper. It is pertinent to mention that Ext.A21 Disability Certificate was proved through a known process of law by examining PW2, the doctor who issued the same. On a close scrutiny of the oral testimony of PW2 who was extensively cross examined at the instance of the appellant in MACA No. 1924 of 2021, nothing substantial has been brought out to discredit the evidence of PW2. It is further pertinent to note that, it is for the Tribunal to arrive at a subjective satisfaction regarding the contents of the disability certificate. 9. Rule 387 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 reads as under: Examination of the injured by a Medical Officer:- The Claims Tribunal may, if it considers necessary, direct any medical officer in a Government Hospital or in a Medical College Hospital or any Board consisting of such Medical Officers to examine the injured and issue disability certificate indicating the degree and extend of the disability, if any, sustained as a result of the accident. A perusal of the aforesaid rules would show that it is for the Tribunal to enter into a subjective satisfaction regarding the contents of the disability certificate. In other words, it is up to the Tribunal to refer the claimant to the medical board. In the scheme of the proceedings before the Tribunal, it is not permissible for the owner or any other person disputing the disability to seek reference of the claimant to the medical board. Once the Tribunal has entered his subjective satisfaction, the objection raised by the owner pales into insignificance. It is also pertinent to note that the subjective satisfaction was arrived by the Tribunal after analysing the evidence of PW2 who has issued Ext. A21 Disability Certificate. 10. It is next contented by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MACA No. 1924 of 2021 that the income fixed by the Tribunal is on a higher side. Pertinently, the evidence adduced by the claimant stands uncontroverted. Therefore this Court does not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the findings rendered by the Tribunal. 11. 10. It is next contented by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MACA No. 1924 of 2021 that the income fixed by the Tribunal is on a higher side. Pertinently, the evidence adduced by the claimant stands uncontroverted. Therefore this Court does not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the findings rendered by the Tribunal. 11. As regards the contention that the tribunal ought to have fasten contributory negligence over the driver of the car which was running in front of the motorcycle ridden by the claimant, this court is of the view that the said contention is untenable in light of the findings in the chargesheet. It is held by the supreme Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. (2018) 5 SCC 656 ) that the findings in the charge sheet is prima facie proof regarding negligence. 12. Now coming to the appeal MACA No.14/2021 preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation, this Court needs to address multiple issues before finally deciding as to whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of the compensation. 13. The first question to be considered is whether the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is appropriate or not. The principle governing the fixation of the notional income is contained in the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram and Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [ AIR 2011 SC 2951 ]. However, it must be noted that the aforesaid principles governing the notional income is applicable to a Coolie worker. When it comes to a student who is highly qualified and an outstanding sports person, the application of the above principles may lead to injustice. In these circumstances, it is only appropriate that the Courts and Tribunal considering the question of fixation of notional income fixes the same above that of a Coolie worker Ramachandrappa (supra). It must be borne in mind that while fixing the notional income of a student, reference to the provisions of Minimum Wages Act should not be made. All endeavor should be made to fix the notional income more than that of a coolie worker. Therefore, it becomes imperative for this Court to fix the notional income of the claimant above that of a Coolie worker. 14. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1 the claimant. All endeavor should be made to fix the notional income more than that of a coolie worker. Therefore, it becomes imperative for this Court to fix the notional income of the claimant above that of a Coolie worker. 14. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1 the claimant. Reading of the evidence shows that he has deposed that he is earning income by conducting tuition classes for his livelihood. Though an attempt was made on behalf of the owner of the vehicle to discredit the evidence of PW1, on a close scrutiny of the cross examination reveals that the owner was not able to establish substantial infirmities in the evidence of PW1. Therefore, as against the evidence of PW1, when the owner of the vehicle failed to adduce any substantial evidence in this regard, the irresistible conclusion possible is that they have failed to discharge the burden. 15. In Sanjay Kumar v. Ashok Kumar & Anr. [(2014) 5 SCC 330] the Supreme Court held that if the amount claimed is realistic and reasonable considering the ground realities, even if no documents is produced the same can be accepted by the tribunal even without documentary proof. 16. Considering the evidence in this case, this court is of the considered view that the amount claimed as Rs.20,000/- by the claimant stands unequivocally proved by his evidence both oral and documentary. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that an amount of Rs.20,000/- can be fixed as the income of the claimant. The claimant was aged 21 at the time of accident and hence is entitled for 40% future prospects. 17. On coming to next question regarding the fixation of the functional disability of the claimant, it must be noticed by this Court that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2014 KHC 4027 ] has clearly delineated the guidelines for the Courts and the Tribunal to fix the functional disability in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each case. 18. In Pappu (supra) the Supreme Court again reiterated the position and held as follows: “21. Courts should not adopt a stereotypical or myopic approach, but instead, view the matter taking into account the realities of life, both in the assessment of the extent of disabilities, and compensation under various heads. 18. In Pappu (supra) the Supreme Court again reiterated the position and held as follows: “21. Courts should not adopt a stereotypical or myopic approach, but instead, view the matter taking into account the realities of life, both in the assessment of the extent of disabilities, and compensation under various heads. In the present case, the loss of an arm, in the opinion of the court, resulted in severe income earning impairment upon the appellant. As a typist/data entry operator, full functioning of his hands was essential to his livelihood. The extent of his permanent disablement was assessed at 89%; however, the High Court halved it to 45% on an entirely wrong application of some ‘proportionate’ principle, which was illogical and is unsupportable in law. What is to be seen, as emphasized by decision after decision, is the impact of the injury upon the income generating capacity of the victim. The loss of a limb (a leg or arm) and its severity on that account is to be judged in relation to the profession, vocation or business of the victim; there cannot be a blind arithmetic formula for ready application. On an overview of the principles outlined in the previous decisions, it is apparent that the income generating capacity of the appellant was undoubtedly severely affected. Maybe, it is not to the extent of 89%, given that he still has the use of one arm, is young and as yet, hopefully training (and rehabilitating) himself adequately for some other calling. Nevertheless, the assessment of disability cannot be 45%; it is assessed at 65% in the circumstances of this case.” 19. Applying the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court as above, it becomes explicitly clear that the Tribunal erred completely in fixing the disability at 55%. A perusal of Ext.A21, reveals that the doctor who examined the claimant has specifically noticed that the claimants right upper limb is having a complete brachial plexus injury which means, the same is non functional even after salvage procedures. 20. At this point, it is pertinent to mention that apart from the injuries noted by the Tribunal, Ext.A21 also reveals that the claimant had suffered Ptosis and blurring of vision of the right eye. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant this component has not been noticed in Ext.A21. 20. At this point, it is pertinent to mention that apart from the injuries noted by the Tribunal, Ext.A21 also reveals that the claimant had suffered Ptosis and blurring of vision of the right eye. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant this component has not been noticed in Ext.A21. If that be so, under normal circumstances, the only option available for the claimant is to seek reference to the medical board for a better evaluation of the disability. Permitting such a recourse would necessarily mean that the appellant has to undergo the ordeal of either a retrial or appear before the medical board for a re-examination. It is pertinent to mention that the accident occurred on 11.11.2015 and even after 9 years, the appellant is not in a position to get just and fair compensation. Therefore, considering these peculiar facts, this Court is inclined to exercise his appellate powers and suitably modify the percentage of disability. On a cumulative consideration of these compelling facts and evidence this Court is of the considered view that the functional disability of the appellant could be fixed at 75%. 21. Before parting this case, this Court needs to address two more issues on the grant of compensation. A perusal of paragraph 12 of the award impugned in the appeal shows that the Tribunal has allowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards transportation charges for repeated admissions in the Vellore Hospital. When the operative portion of the award is seen, the Tribunal has granted only Rs.15,000/- towards transportation expenses and therefore the same requires modification. Still further, a further reading of the award shows that the Tribunal has accepted Exts.A8 and A23 bills except the advance bills mentioned as Bill No. 5, 14, 15 and 23 in Ext.A23 series which come to a total of Rs.2,505/-. When the entire series of medical bills compiled under Ext.A8 is closely perused, it is seen that a total amount of Rs.2,53,090/- is claimed for a period of 13.03.2016 to 20.03.2016 and a further amount of Rs.4,44,560/- from 11.11.2015 to 09.05.2016. However, it is pointed out that the Tribunal though accepted the bills for Rs.4,44,560/- completely omitted to consider the claim of Rs.2,53,090/- and thus abdiction. On a careful consideration of these material facts, this Court finds considerable force in submissions of Sri. Nimod A.R., learned counsel appearing for the appellant. However, it is pointed out that the Tribunal though accepted the bills for Rs.4,44,560/- completely omitted to consider the claim of Rs.2,53,090/- and thus abdiction. On a careful consideration of these material facts, this Court finds considerable force in submissions of Sri. Nimod A.R., learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The Tribunal has not calculated the amounts correctly and therefore the appellant is entitled for the omitted portion of the amounts covered by Ext.A8 bills. Hence an additional amount of Rs.2,53,090/- is allowed under the medical expenses. 22. As an upshot of these discussions, this Court finds that the appellant in MACA No. 1924 of 2021 is not entitled to succeed. Accordingly, MACA No. 1924 of 2021 is dismissed with costs quantified as Rs.10,000/-. MACA No. 14 of 2021 is allowed and the appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation as follows: Head of claim Amount awarded by the tribunal (Rs.) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs.) Enhanced compensation Loss of earning 1,00,000/- 3,60,000/- (20000x18) 2,60,000/- (3,60,000- 1,00,000) Medical expenses 5,84,345/- 8,37,435/- 2,53,090/- (8,37,435- 5,84,345) Transportation Expenses 15,000/- 80,000/- 65,000/- (80,000-15,000) Compensation for continuing disability 16,63,200/ - 45,36,000/- (28,000x12x18x7 5/100) 28,72,800/- (45,36,000- 16,63,200) Loss of amenities 70,000/- 2,00,000/- 1,30,000/- (2,00,000- 70,000) Compensation for disfigurement 20,000/- 50,000/- 30,000/- (50,000-20,000) Marriage Prospects 25,000/- 1,25,000/- 1,00,000/- (1,25,000-25,000) Pain and suffering 75,000/- 2,00,000 1,25,000/- (2,00,000- 75,000) Total enhanced amount of compensation 38,35,890/- Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are awarded an additional compensation of Rs.38,35,890/- (Rupees Thirty eight lakh thirty five thousand eight hundred and ninety only) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization together with proportionate costs. The appellant is given liberty to execute the award against the properties of the respondents 1 and 2 in accordance with law by instituting appropriate proceedings.