K.P. Jyothindranath, J.

This appeal is preferred challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri in O.P.(MV)No.271/2009. The challenge is against the quantum of compensation awarded.

2. Facts relevant for consideration of this appeal are : Appellant sustained very severe injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 1.7.2008 at 8.p.m. on the side of the public road, Valancherry. The appellant was a pedestrian. A lorry came and hit against the appellant and thereby he sustained fracture of D12 vertebra. There was also fracture of L1 and L2. There was also rupture of left diaphram. It is certified that he is having complete paraplegia and his disability was assessed by the District Medical Board as 75%, and the State disability board assessed his disability as 85%. There is no appeal by the respondents in the claim petition.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that practically appellant became a vegetable and he cannot even move without the help of a bystander. He is practically fully laid up. It is the submission that the Tribunal ought to have taken 100% disability for calculating compensation for loss of earning capacity. In this matter there was loss of movement and sensation below the level of umbilicus i.e. paraplegia of lower limbs with no sensation and no motor power and total incontinence. It is the further submission that the appellant was aged 23 years at the time of the accident and was an agriculturist who used to attend a workshop to add to his income. It is also the submission that the compensation awarded on pecuniary loss as also non-pecuniary loss are too inadequate and therefore, reassessment of compensation on all heads, is highly necessary.

3. We have also heard the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. The learned counsel submitted before us that the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 10,56,016/- and it is a just compensation. As such, an interference by this court is not warranted. It is the further submission that even though there is an assessment of disability by the State board, the Tribunal has rightly considered only 75% of disability for the assessment purpose as both his upper limbs are movable.

4. Indisputably, the appellant became paraplegic on sustaining injuries in the motor vehicle accident. The State Medical Board assessed the disability as 85%. But surely, it is a fact that in this case the lower limbs of the appellant got no sensation. Further, it is evident from the medical records that the area below the umbilicus region lost its sense. He will not be even able to sit. The case of the claimant is that he was an agriculturist. Any way he can be considered as a manual labour, in the absence of positive evidence regarding his occupation. The effect of disability on the appellant will be more than the actual disability. The dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Rajkumar v. Ajaykumar [2011 (1) KLT 62(SC)] should act as a guideline in a matter like this, in the matter of assessment of functional disability/loss of earning power. Thus after considering all the medical records before us and also considering the nature of the injuries and their impact, keeping in mind that the appellant was aged 23 years only at the time of the accident and further of the fact that for eking his livelihood he has to do manual labour and he is totally incapacitated to do the same, we feel that it will be only just and proper to consider 100% functional disability for the purpose of calculation.

5. In this case, the occupation of the appellant is shown as agriculturist. We have already considered that he will be at least considered as a manual labour. The Honourable Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236] considered a notional income of Rs. 4,500/- in the case of a coolie who met with a motor vehicle accident in the year 2004. In the present case, the accident occurred in the yea