The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and relevant case law to determine the quantum of compensation for various heads based on the nature of injuries and disabilities.

ASHA, J.

Insurance Company has filed this appeal against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. The claimant met with an accident on 23.06.2005 while he was riding his motorcycle on collision with a bus on the backside of the motorcycle. The claimant sustained severe injuries. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.15 lakhs. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,57,930/-. According to the Insurance Company, the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering, loss of marriage prospects as well as towards disability are excessive. It is also their grievance that the income reckoned by the Tribunal in respect of the claimant is excessive.

3. We heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company as well as the learned counsel appearing for the claimant.

4. The injured was aged 19 years at the time of the accident. It was claimed that he was a coolie earning monthly income of Rs.4,500/-. He sustained severe head injury, brain stem injury, diffuse brain injury, left facial palsy bilateral foot drops and comminuted fracture right fibula. He underwent treatment in Moulana Hospital, Perinthalmanna. For the first spell of 20 days he remained unconscious. He underwent inpatient treatment for a period of 76 days. After discharge from the hospital on 7.9.05, he had to undertake several visits to the hospital, which the Tribunal found as more than 20 times.

5. The Tribunal found that the injured is entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards pain and suffering taking note of the fact that he remained unconscious for a period of 20 days and continued to suffer from the injuries even after that. As it was claimed that he was working as a coolie and earning Rs.4,500/- per mensem, the Tribunal thought it fit to fix the income @ Rs.3,000/- and adopting the multiplier of 16, awarded a sum of Rs.1,15,200/- taking his disability as 20%, based on Ext.C1.

6. But we find that the proper multiplier in the case of a person aged 19 years is 18, going by the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802].

7. As far as the income reckoned by the Tribunal is concerned, it cannot be said that the income fixed by the Tribunal @ Rs.3,000/- is unreasonable. In the judgment of the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011(13) SCC 236] as well as in Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager [AIR 2014 SC 1052], the monthly income in the case of a coolie was reckoned as Rs.4,500/- in respect of an accident which occurred in the year 2004. Therefore the compensation arrived at by the Tribunal reckoning the income @ Rs.3,000/- cannot be said to be excessive. At the same time, it has to be calculated adopting the proper multiplier of 18.

8. The next complaint of the Insurance Company is regarding the compensation of Rs.1 lakh awarded towards pain and suffering. The appellant was admitted in the Maulana Hospital, Perinthalmanna immediately after the accident. As per the records relating to the treatment, it is seen that he had subarachnoid haemorrhage, cerebellar haemorrhage and brain edima. He was put in the Neurosurgery intensive care unit under ventilation for 8 days. Thereafter he underwent Tracheotomy on 1.7.05 and it was removed on 24.07.05. He developed ® sided pneurothorax for the ICD done. For 20 days, he remained unconscious. He had a few episode of seizures, fracture lower 3rd of right fibula. From 23.06.05 to 7.9.05 he underwent inpatient treatment undertaking different courses of treatment. The District Medical Board, when it examined the injured on 11.06.08, found that he had complaints of deviation of angle of mouth to right, difficulty on walking, recurrent episodes of seizures and impaired memory, seventh nerve (facial nerve) palsy (left) plus minimal foot drop (Rt). His locomotor disability was assessed as 17%, whereas neurolog