IMPORTANT POINT
The court enhanced the compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, recognizing the severe impact on the petitioner's life, education, and future prospects.

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. 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 furth