The main legal point established is the need for just and reasonable compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to fully restore the claimant to their pre-accident position, considering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant-Afnees (unconscious), through his mother, has approached this Court aggrieved by the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam whereby the High Court allowed the appeal of the Insurance Company and reduced the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadakara (for short, 'the Tribunal') from Rs. 10,88,800/- to Rs.5,76,000/- by applying a multiplier of 16 as the claimant was aged 19 at the relevant time and further partly allowed the appeal of the appellant and awarded Rs. 1 lakh towards future treatment.

3. In the petition filed by the appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'), which came to be registered as OP (MV) No.575 of 2007, the appellant prayed for award of compensation to the tune of Rs.22,00,000/-. The appellant's claim was founded on the following assertions:

(i) That the appellant had suffered grievous injuries in an accident which occurred on 28.12.2006 when his motor cycle was hit by a jeep driven in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed.

(ii) That he was initially treated at MCH, Calicut from where he was shifted to Indo American Hospital Brain and Spine Centre, Vaikom. He remained in the hospital from 28.12.2006 to 11.02.2007 and 28.02.2007 to 15.03.2007. Due to the accident, the appellant was totally bed ridden and is in a coma (vegetative) stage and the medical board assessed his disability at 100 per cent. His treatment still continues with no improvement and may be in the same position for his remaining life.

(iii) That at the time of accident his age was about 19 years and he was doing part-time job as a sales man drawing a monthly salary of Rs.3,000/- per month.

(iv) That on account of the accident, he is fully dependent for all activities of daily life.

(v) He is from a poor family and his parents, being labourers, cannot afford the treatment expenses.

4. After considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by them, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving. The respondent insurance-company admitted the valid insurance coverage over the offending jeep as on the date of accident and has not proved any violation of policy terms and conditions by driver and the owner. Hence, the above compensation is to be paid by the insurance company. The Tribunal then referred to the Second Schedule of the Act and determined the amount of compensation by assuming the appellant's income to be Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal was of the view that due to 100% disability, the appellant would suffer loss of income to the tune of Rs.36,000/- per annum. The Tribunal then applied the multiplier of 18 and held that the appellant is entitled to Rs.6,48,000/- towards permanent disability. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads amounts to Rs. 10,88,800/-.

5. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% on the total compensation and directed the respondent insurance company to pay the same from the date of filing of the petition till realisation.

6. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court seeking enhancement of compensation. The Insurance Company also preferred an appeal seeking reduction of compensation.

7. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal of the insurance company and held that the multiplier of 16 should have been adopted instead of 18 as the claimant was aged 19 at the material time and reduced the compensation amount to Rs.5,76,000/-. The High Court further partly allowed the appeal of the appellant and awarded Rs. 1 lakh towards future treatment when the claimant is in a coma stage.

8. The only question which arises for our consideration is whether the High Court was justified in reducing the compensation amount and granting only Rs. 1 lakh towards future treatment.

9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the part