JUDGMENT : (C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.) The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1149 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, is the appellant in MACA No.3806 of 2018 and the 3 rd respondent in the O.P is the appellant in MACA No.2327 of 2018. (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 27.08.2012. According to the petitioner, on 27.08.2012 at about 11.20 a.m., while she was standing on the western footpath of Poopally – Champakkulam road, a KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KL- 15/6963 driven by the 2 nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked her down and she was trapped under the bus and was dragged for about 18 metres resulting in serious injuries including crush injury to her right thigh and lower abdomen. 3. The 1 st respondent is the owner and 3 rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.71,03,000/- limited to Rs.71,00,000/-. 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 PWs 1 to 3 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A29 and X1. 6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.32,40,304/- and directed the insurer to pay the same. 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred MACA No.3806 of 2018 and challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal the 3 rd respondent preferred MACA No.2327 of 2018. 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. 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.A.T.Anilkumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Alex Antony Sebastian, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSRTC and Sri.Dinesh Mathew Murickan, the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company. 10. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: (1) Extensive crushing anterior right thigh (2) Abrasion over left thigh (3)Abrasion over anterior abdomen (4) Abrasion over left elbow (5) Abrasion left side of lateral margin of eye (6) fracture pelvis type C (7) Crush injury right thigh with crushed femoral neurovascular bundle. 11. As per Exhibit A16 disability certificate issued by the PW1, the permanent physical disability of the petitioner was assessed as 30%. However, the Tribunal has scaled down the percentage of disability to 25%. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner was referred to a Medical Board constituted by the Superintendent, Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha, wherein she was again examined and as per the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha her permanent physical disability was assessed as 29%. The aforesaid disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha, is marked as Ext.X2, for reference. 12. PW3 was the doctor who had conducted plastic surgery to the petitioner. He was also the Professor of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Amrita Institute of Medical Science, Kochi. PW3 produced Ext.X1 case report with regard to the treatment given to the petitioner. According to PW3, as per his advice Lymphoscintigraphy was done to the petitioner, as there was scintigraphic grade III lymphatic disfunction of right lower limb and superficial lymphatic channel were detected. According to to him, the petitioner needs further surgical intervention in future for strengthening of extension of her right leg. At the time of evidence, PW3 deposed that even if she undergoes that surgery, she may not get complete recovery. According to him, there is no permanent cure for lymph odema and she requires life long physiotherapy. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that though the permanent physical disability of the petitioner was assessed as 29% by the Medical Board, the petitioner is unable to even stand without the help of another and as such her functional disability is to be treated as 100%. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that though the permanent physical disability of the petitioner was assessed as 29% by the Medical Board, the petitioner is unable to even stand without the help of another and as such her functional disability is to be treated as 100%. Since such a contention was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was permitted to appear before this Court. Today the petitioner appeared before the Court in a wheelchair. She could not stand or move around without the help of another. Her right leg is completely disfigured with irregular shape, due to degloving injury. Disfiguration was there on her left leg also. She submitted that such deformity and disfiguration was there upto her abdomen areas also. After examining the petitioner in person and noticing that she could not even stand or walk without the help of somebody else and she could move only in a wheelchair, I hold that the injuries sustained in the accident completely destroyed her life as well as her career. 14. In Ext.A7 certificate issued from Little Flower Girl’s High School, Pulikunnu, it is stated that she was an excellent and brilliant student in standard 8 and 9. Because of the injuries sustained in the accident, she had to discontinue her study in standard 10. Ext.A23 series are the certificates evidencing her extra curricular activities. Those documents include certificate for Thiruvathirakali with A grade in Kerala CBSE School Management Association in the State Youth Festival conducted by Kerala CBSE School Management Association, certificate of merit fancy dress first place in fancy dress conducted by East Point English Medium School in 2010, 2 nd place in greeting card issued by Bishop Kurialacherry Public School in 2011, and 2 nd place in Malayalam recitation issued from East Point English Medium School in 2008 and B grade in PCM Scholarship examination (Preliminary 2003-04) in 2003-04. 15. Therefore, from Exts.A17 and A23 series, it can be seen that the petitioner was not only excellent in academic activities, but in extra curricular activities also. The petitioner submitted that her ambition was to become a dancer, and that the injuries spoiled her career as a dancer. Ext.A21 is a certificate issued from College of Fashion Designing stating that the petitioner had joined in the fashion designing course during 2016, but discontinued the course in 2016. The petitioner submitted that her ambition was to become a dancer, and that the injuries spoiled her career as a dancer. Ext.A21 is a certificate issued from College of Fashion Designing stating that the petitioner had joined in the fashion designing course during 2016, but discontinued the course in 2016. The petitioner also submitted that because of the injuries sustained in the accident, her marriage prospect is also completely lost. Therefore, after examining the petitioner in person, I am satisfied that her functional disability is almost total and the injuries sustained in the accident has spoiled her life as well as her career. 16. From the evidence of PW3, it is also revealed that though continuous treatment is given, there is no scope for recovery to normal life. Even now, she is undergoing treatment. The learned counsel has produced hospital bills for a sum of Rs.2,72,366/-, medical bills for a sum of Rs.49,908/- and taxi bills for a sum of Rs.24,000/- for the period after passing of the award by the Tribunal. Those documents show that even now she is under treatment. In the above circumstances, considering the entire facts, I hold that the functional disability of the petitioner could be fixed at 80%. 17. At the time of accident, she was a 10 th standard student aged 15 years. From the evidence in Ext.A17 and A23 series, it is revealed that she was an excellent student in academic as well as extra curricular activities. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ], the notional income of a coolie during the year 2012 will come to Rs.8,500/-. In the decision in Mekala v. Malathi M and Another [ 2014 (11) SCC 178 ], the Hon’ble Apex Court has fixed the notional income of a XI th standard student involved in an accident in the year 2005 at Rs.10,000/-. In the instant case, the accident occurred in the year 2012. Therefore, I hold that in the instant case, the notional income of the petitioner can be fixed at Rs.12,000/-. 18. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 15 years. Therefore, 40% of the monthly income is to be added towards future prospects, as held in the decision in National Insurance Co. Therefore, I hold that in the instant case, the notional income of the petitioner can be fixed at Rs.12,000/-. 18. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 15 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 18, 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.29,03,040/-. 19. From the evidence on record, it is revealed that the injuries sustained in the accident spoiled the education of the petitioner at the 10th standard. Though she joined in the fashion designing course, she had to discontinue the same also. I have already found that she was a bright student not only in academics but also in extracurricular activities. Therefore towards loss of study, she is entitled to get reasonable compensation. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of education. Considering the facts, I hold that towards loss of education a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- can be awarded. 20. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.4,00,000/- was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side. 21. The petitioner sustained very serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 64 days. Because of the injuries sustained, the percentage of disability suffered and the length of treatment undergone by the petitioner, 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.5,00,000/- each. 22. It is revealed that she could not move without the help of a bystander and as such towards bystander expense, she is entitled to get a reasonable expense. In the decision in Kajal v. Jagadeesh Chand & Others [ 2020 (4) SCC 413 ], the expense of a bystander was fixed by the Apex Court at a sum of Rs.5,000/- on the basis of the minimum wages of a skilled labourer prevailing during the relevant period in the State of Haryana. In the decision in Kajal v. Jagadeesh Chand & Others [ 2020 (4) SCC 413 ], the expense of a bystander was fixed by the Apex Court at a sum of Rs.5,000/- on the basis of the minimum wages of a skilled labourer prevailing during the relevant period in the State of Haryana. In the above circumstance, I hold that in this case also the petitioner is entitled to get the minimum wages of a skilled worker towards the expense of a bystander. As per the notification issued by the Government of Kerala, the minimum wages of a skilled labourer during the year 2009 was Rs.3,956/- and in the year 2016, which was fixed at Rs.8,910/-. Therefore, the average increase per year will come to Rs.704/-. If so, the minimum wages of a skilled labourer during the year 2012 will come to Rs.6,080/-. In the above circumstance, towards bystander expense, the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.13,13,280/- (6,080x12x18). 23. The petitioner has produced hospital bills of Rs.2,72,366, medical bills of Rs.49,908 and taxi bills of Rs.24,000/-, totaling Rs.346,274 spent during the pendency of this appeal. Since the said claim is supported by bills a sum of Rs.3,46,274/- is awarded towards additional medical expenses. 24. The petitioner is still under medical treatment. The certificate issued by PW3, shows that she requires further surgery in 3 stages for which around Rs.5,50,000/- will be required. I do not find any grounds to disbelieve Ext.A28 and as such, towards future medical expense, a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- is awarded, which will carry interest only from the date of the judgment. 25. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation to the petitioner on the heads disfiguration and compensation for marriage prospects. Considering the entire facts, I hold that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- will be a reasonable compensation on the heads ‘disfiguration and compensation for marriage prospects’ taken together. 26. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 27. Therefore, the petitioner/appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.82,21,898/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: Sl. 26. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 27. Therefore, the petitioner/appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.82,21,898/-, 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 Expense for transportation 28,804 28,804 2 Expense for treatment + Additional bills produced 10,40,000 10,40,000 + 3,46,274 3 Extra nourishment 40,000 40,000 4 Bystander expenses 75,000 13,13,280 5 Damage to clothing 500 500 6 Loss of education 3,00,000 5,00,000 7 Expenses for future treatment 4,00,000 5,50,000 8 Compensation for pain and sufferings 2,00,000 5,00,000 9 Compensation for loss of amenities 4,00,000 5,00,000 10 Compensation for permanent disability 7,56,000 29,03,040 11 Compensation for disfiguration and marriage prospects Nil 5,00,000 Total 32,40,304 82,21,898 Enhanced to Rs. 49,81,594 28. In the result, these Appeals are disposed of and 3 rd respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.82,21,898/- (Rupees Eighty Two Lakhs Twenty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety 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. 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.