Compensation for injuries must reflect the severity of the impact on the victim's life, considering both physical and psychological aspects.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1477/2008 on the file of the Addl.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, 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 18.05.2008. The petitioner was a 12 year old girl at the time of the accident. According to the petitioner, on 18.05.2008 at about 5.30 p.m., while the child was standing in front of her school, a maruti omni van bearing reg.no.KL-4/P-0739 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, knocked her down, and as a result of the accident, she 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 limited to Rs.6,00,000/-

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 testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A11 and C1. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

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.7,30,175/- 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.B.Pramod, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.P.K.Manoj Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid insurance 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. At the time of the accident she was a 7^th standard student. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries:

1. Contusion back of the head.

2. Swelling right eyelid.

3. CT Scan shows one subarchanoid hemarrage, brain odema present.

4. Right orbital wall fracture medially.

11. As per Exhibit C1 disability certificate the petitioner suffered 47% permanent physical disability. It was issued by the Government Medical College, Kottayam. The Tribunal, has accepted the permanent physical disability of the petitioner as such.

12. Since from the injuries sustained in the accident, she is suffering from neurological disability and the Tribunal itself noted after observing her that, from the appearance itself it can be seen that she is suffering from neurological disability and that she is unable to manage herself, her functional disability will be munch more than what is assessed by the medical board and shown in Ext.C1. Therefore, considering the facts, I fix her functional disability at 60%.

13. The Tribunal has taken her notional income at Rs.2500/-. In the impugned award, the Tribunal has noted that the petitioner was a bright student and was also actively participating in extra curricular activities and she had won several prizes for dances, Kuchippudi etc. PW1, the doctor who examined her, deposed before the Tribunal that the petitioner has neurological disability and it will not be improved by physiotherapy. In the award the Tribunal also noted that, from the appearance of the petitioner itself it is revealed that she has neurological disability and also that she is unable to manage herself.

14. The learned counsel fo