IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation for injuries in motor accidents must reflect just and reasonable amounts considering the victim's future prospects and severity of injuries.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1000/2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, is the appellant herein. (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 29.05.2011. According to the petitioner, on 29.05.2011 at about 11.30 p.m., while he was traveling in a car driven by the 1^st respondent along the Aluva-Munnar Public road, the car hit against a electric post. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries.

3. The 1^st respondent is the driver, the 2^nd 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.55,24,719/-.

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 documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A12, B1 and C1 were marked.

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.28,57,720/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal.

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.N Santhosh, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Smt. Latha Susan Cherian, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, at the time of the accident the petitioner was aged 24 and 3^rd year BDS student at Mar Baselios Dental College, Kothanmangalam, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.15000/-. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the notional income of the petitioner, fixed by the tribunal at Rs.15,000/- is on the lower side.

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent would argue that the notional income fixed by the tribunal is just and reasonable.

12. In the decision in Ramakrishnapilla and others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd [2015 (3) KLJ 750], this Court has fixed the notional income of a 4^th semester B.Tech student in the accident of the year 2006 at Rs.12,000/-. In the decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd v. Fathima Zuhara [Manu/KE/1087/2016], in the case of a 2^nd year Engineering student involved in an accident in the year 2005, this court has fixed notional income at Rs.12,000/-. In the decision in Nanu. K and others v. National Insurance Co.Ltd [MACA 565/ 2019], in the case of a final engineering student involved in an accident in the year 2015, the notional income was fixed by this Court at Rs.22,000/-. In the instant case the petitioner was a 3rd year BDS student. It is also revealed that, because of the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner has to discontinue his BDS course. In the above circumstances, considering the entire facts, I hold that the notional income of the petitioner can be fixed at Rs. 18,000/-.

13. In the accident, as per Ext.A8 certificate, the petitioner sustained the following injuries:

1. has bony defect on the left forehead

2. has personality changes

3. behavioural disturbances in the form of emotion outbursts and tem per tantrums

4. Decreased memory and learning disability

5. had to discontinue his