JUDGMENT

While the appellant was riding his bicycle on 03.09.2008, he was hit by a car, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The appellant suffered cervical and traumatic spinal cord injury and became paralysed and fully bedridden. It is submitted that his condition remains the same even now. A claim was preferred before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of ₹4,63,000/- and directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount. Aggrieved by the award, the appellant has filed this appeal.

2. Heard Sri.Siju Kamalasanan, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Deepa George, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal went wrong in taking the notional income as ₹3,000/- per month and ought to have taken the notional income as ₹3,500/- as claimed. The above submission is justified in the light of the decision Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd., reported in [AIR 2011 SC 2951]. Adding 10% towards future prospects, the notional income has to be taken as ₹3,850/- per month and necessary changes will have to be made regarding the compensation for permanent disability. Regarding the permanent disability, as per Ext.C1 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, the disability is assessed as 75%. The contention of the appellant is that the appellant is completely bedridden and he requires a bystander throughout his life. It appears that the appellant was brought before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has noted that the appellant could not be moved to the Court. However, after noting that the appellant is completely laid up, the Tribunal has gone ahead to compute the compensation for disability based on a disability of 60% alone. The counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case of 100% disability and the Tribunal has gone wrong in this aspect. I am of the opinion that the contention is justified on the facts of the case. Even though the disability assessed as per Ext.C1 is only 75%, as far as the functional disability is concerned, it is a case of 100% disability, since the appellant has become completely paralysed and bedridden. Hence I am of the opinion that the compensation towards disability has to be calculated on the basis of a notional income of ₹3,850/- and 100% disability. The counsel for the appellant submits that the amount awarded towards bystanders expenses is very less. Reference is made to the decision in Kajal V. Jagdish Chand reported in [2020 (1) KLT 743], to contend that it is a case where compensation has to be awarded for bystander throughout life following the multiplier method. The claim of the appellant is justified in the light of the decision of the Apex Court.

4. I am of the opinion that the bystander expenses can be calculated at ₹6,000/- per month and multiplier of '11' applicable to a person aged 55 years can be applied for arriving at amount payable towards bystander expenses for life. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount awarded towards pain and suffering is also very meager considering the fact that the appellant was hospitalized for about 71 days in 3 spells as found by the Tribunal in paragraph 11 of the Award. Considering the gravity of the injury and the hospitalisation for 71 days, I am of the opinion that the appellant should be awarded a sum of ₹70,000/- towards pain and sufferings. It is also pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that no amount was granted towards future treatment. I am of the opinion that a sum of ₹30,000/- is to be awarded towards future treatment. However, the said amount will not carry interest as in the case of compensation under the other heads. The counsel further submits that an amount of ₹8,000/- alone has been granted towards transportation to hospital when it is admitted that the appellant had to be hospitalised on 3 occasions and necessarily he cannot be transported by the usual means sin