JUDGMENT

On 1.12.2015, the ill fated day, the appellant suffered grave injuries in a road traffic accident. The appellant was aged only 19 years at the time of the accident and was a BBA student. He was also earning some income, by working as a newspaper boy. The appellant approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal claiming Rs.1,71,02,000/- as compensation and limited the claim to Rs.1,00,00,000/- for the purpose of court fee. The Tribunal initially awarded Rs.53,01,770/- as compensation. Thereafter, the appellant moved a review petition, pointing out that the Tribunal had omitted to take note of the Medical Board's certificate, assessing the appellant to be having 100% disability. That review petition was allowed by the Tribunal and the compensation enhanced to Rs.79,01,200/-. Thereafter, the Insurance Company filed another review petition, disputing the medical expenses to the tune of Rs.3,84,350.51, out of the total sum of Rs.40,00,100/- awarded under that head. The review petition filed by the insurer was also allowed and Rs.1,57,200/- deducted from the compensation awarded. Later, the Insurance company filed another review petition, contending that out of the compensation awarded towards medical expenses, Rs.20,15,200/- is not expenditure incurred by the appellant, since the bill for 8 items were not issued in the appellant's name and for 2 items, only proforma invoices were produced. Even though the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the award is liable to be reviewed, the review petition was dismissed, as this appeal was filed by that time.

2. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company.

3. The fact that the appellant suffered grave injuries in a road traffic accident and the offending vehicle had valid policy are admitted. The dispute is only with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal had grossly erred in fixing the appellant's monthly income at Rs.8000/-, as against the income Rs.10,000/- per month claimed by him. Further, the compensation granted towards bystander expenses, extra nourishment, transportation to hospital, pain and suffering as well as loss of amenities in life are on the lower side, considering the gravity of the injuries and its impact on the appellant's life. Placing reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Minor Basid v. K.C.Sanu and Another [2018 (2) KHC 671], it is contended that the appellant is liable to be compensated for shortened expectation of life also.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company pointed out that the insurer has filed a cross objection, aggrieved by the award of an excess amount of Rs.20,20,327/- towards medical expenses, based on documents which were not sufficient to substantiate the claim. It is submitted that, two among those bills are only proforma invoices pertaining to supportive equipment and no bill or other document was produced to prove actual purchase of those devices. Moreover, after finding substance in the challenge made through a review petition, the Tribunal had refrained from reviewing the award only due to the pendency of this appeal. It is hence contended that the cross objection ought to be allowed and the excess amount, paid towards medical expenses, deducted from the total compensation.

5. The challenging question to be answered is regarding the inadequacy or otherwise of the compensation awarded to a young boy, whose hopes and aspirations about life got shattered by the accident. Adding to the appellant’s woes, his mother died within two days of the accident, presumably from the shock of seeing the broken body of her son and the apprehension that he may succumb to the injuries. Ext.A7 discharge summary issued from the KIMS Hospital, wherein the appellant was under treatment from 11.12.2015 to 01.01.2016, reveals the gravity of the injuries sustained by him. The contextually relevant portion of Ext.