Devan Ramachandran, J.

1. The afore two appeals have their genesis from the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal" for short) in OP(MV)No. 1379/2015.

2. The afore original petition was filed by the appellant in MACA No. 4689/2019-Sri. Chacko T.C (who will hereinafter be referred to by his name for ease), on the allegation that, when he was riding a Scooter along with his wife as the pillion rider, at about 11.30 AM on 13.11.2014, a motor cycle driven by the 1st respondent-Sri. Alfin C.Stephen, owned by the 2nd respondent-his mother-Smt. Sheeja Cherian, hit them, thus causing him very grievous injuries. He says that he was hospitalised for a long period of time, having to undergo very specialised treatment; and therefore, that he was justified in having approached the Tribunal seeking a compensation of Rs. 32,10,000/-, limited to Rs. 20,00,000/-. He alleges that, however, the Tribunal, on a wrong appreciation of the evidence on record, found him guilty of 40% contributory negligence and fixed an exiguous compensation of Rs. 4,98,000/-; and thus prays that the impugned Award be set aside.

3. While so, MACA No. 644/2021 has been preferred by the United Insurance Company, which insured the offending vehicle owned by Smt. Sheeja Cherian, asserting that, since Alfin C.Stephen-her son, who was riding the motorcycle at the relevant time-was a minor, holding no valid driving licence they ought to have been allowed to recover the compensation from her.

4. I have heard Sri. Susanth Shaji, appearing for Chacko T.C; Sri. Baby Antony-learned counsel appearing for Alfin C.Stephen and Smt. Sheeja Cherian and Sri. Muhammed Nazir-learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company.

5. Sri. Susanth Shaji vehemently argued that the offending vehicle was ridden by Sri. Alfin C.Stephen and that this is evident from the deposition made by his client and his wife as PW1 and PW2 respectively. He contended that, the Tribunal could not have entered into a finding of contributory negligence against his client when Exts.A3 and A4 vehicle mahazars of his client and of the offending vehicle respectively, and Exts.A5 and A6 report of the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector (AMVI) with respect to the two vehicles, establishes without any doubt that the offending vehicle had come into the area of the road allotted to his client's vehicle and when both vehicles suffered damage in its front portion, including its number plate and crash guards, ineluctably indicating a head-on collision. His argument was that, when a head-on collision is apodictic from the afore documents and when the offending vehicle is, in Ext.A2, certified to be on the wrong side of the road, then the Tribunal could not have entered into a finding of contributory negligence against his client.

6. As regards the amounts granted by the Tribunal, Sri. Susanth Shaji submitted that, his client's notional income has been taken to be only Rs. 8,000/-per month; while, as per the standardisation postulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011)13 SCC 236] [LQ/SC/2007/1258 ;] , it ought to have been fixed at a minimum of Rs. 9,500/-per month. He then showed me Exts.A9 and A10-Treatment and Discharge Certificates, to assert that his client suffered very grievous injuries, including cervical spinal cord damage and spinal cord compression, thus constraining him to spent time as an inpatient for a total of seventy days. He added to his submissions, saying that, the "Bystander expenses" granted for seventy days, at the rate of Rs. 200 per day and for "extra nourishment" at the rate of Rs. 200 per day, are exiguous, going by the ground realities, even in the year 2014. He firstly submitted that, as per Ext.A15-Disability Certificate, it has been certified that his client suffered permanent disability of 27%, but the Tribunal went on to hold that, since this is not a whole body disability, it should be reduced to 20% and consequently, the amount of compensation has also been varied. He thus prayed that the impugned Award of the Tribunal, to the extent assailed, be set aside and his client be granted the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-as compensation.

7. Sri. A.M.Mohammed Nazir-learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, on the other hand, confined his argument to the effect that the offending vehicle was ridden by the minor, who admittedly had no driving licence; that no liability could have been fixed upon his client. As an alternative plea, Sri. Mohammed Nazir requested that, even if his client are to be ordered to shoulder the same, the right to recover it from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in MACA No. 644/21 ought to be reserved. He argued, in fortification of the contention that, in fact, Ext.A7 Final Report of the Police, which records that the crime involved in the incident was undetected by recording it as a "UN Report" is very suspicious, particularly, when the owner of the offending vehicle-Smt. Sheeja Cherian admitted that she is a close relative of a top-ranking Police Officer in Kerala. He thus prayed that the findings of the Tribunal, holding his client liable to pay the compensation, be set aside; or, in the alternative, to allow them to pay and recover the same from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in MACA No. 644/21.

8. I notice from the files that there is no appearance for respondents 1 and 2 in MACA No. 4689/19 (who are respondents 2 and 3 in MACA No. 644/21), in spite of valid service of summons on them. I have evaluated the afore rival submissions and have also gone through the evidence and documents on record.

9. There is great force in the submissions of Sri. Susanth Shaji appearing for the claimant-Sri. Chacko T.C.,-that Ext.A2-Scene Mahazar would render it indubitable that the offending vehicle was found on the western side of the road in question, while traveling from north to south. The claimant was driving his vehicle from south to north and he was on the western side of the road; while the offending vehicle is also seen to be on the same side, much in excess of the half line divide of the road, which is certified to be 3.80 metres in width. This is inescapable because, the Scene Mahazar then goes on to record that the offending vehicle was at a distance of 2.70 metres towards west, which luculently indicates that it had gone into the area reserved for the vehicles traveling from south to north. Coupled with this, the Mahazars of the two vehicles-which are available as Exts.A3 and A4-would show that both of them had damage on its front portion, particularly on its number plates and the crash guards, which would be more than sufficient to indicate a head-on collision. When such a collision happens at a point of 2.70 metres towards west in a road certified to have total width of 3.80 meters, the irresistible conclusion can only be that the offending vehicle had swerved into the area for the vehicles travelling from south to north, thus having caused the collision.

10. In the afore scenario, one certainly fails to understand how the Tribunal has found contributory negligence on the appellant, which has been recorded by it in a rather casual manner in paragraph 10 of the Award impugned. No germane reasons have been given by the Tribunal as to how it concluded that the Mahazars of the vehicles on record would show that claimant was also negligent, when, as I have already said above, they speak quite to the contrary. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal, that the claimant was responsible for the accident to an extent of 40%, can never be found favour with.

11. The corollary question is, who caused the accident and who was driving the offending vehicle.

12. No doubt, at the time of the accident and soon thereafter, both the claimant and his wife-as is limpid from their deposition as PW1 and PW2 respectively-maintained that the vehicle was being driven by the minor, namely Alphin C. Stephen. It is also without doubt that, he had no valid driving licence at that time; and this is the same position taken by the Insurance Company in their appeal, namely, MACA No. 644/2021.

13. However, it must be borne in mind that the Police have filed Ext.A7-Final Report, wherein, though the aforementioned Sri. Alphin C. Stephen has been shown as an accused, it is recorded that the offences alleged against him stand undetected, particularly, because the report regarding the forensic analysis of a piece of jeans found on the vehicle of the claimant had not been obtained from the Forensic Science Laboratory. However, as rightly found by the Tribunal, the Final Charge Sheet of the Police was not binding on it and has correctly held that an accident did occur, though confusion remains as to who was riding the offending vehicle.

14. In this context, it would be worthwhile to refer to the evidence of Smt. Sheeja Cherian as DW1, who specifically took the stand that it was she who was riding the vehicle at the time of the accident, and explained the same saying that her vehicle did not hit that of the claimant, but that he fell because he suffered from Hyperglycemia on account of the fact that he was a diabetic. The latter part of the deposition of DW1 would be irrelevant because, she had no such case in her pleadings; and, in any event, it is only an afterthought. The factum of the accident being without doubt and the fact that the claimant had suffered very grievous injuries being without dispute, the only question that this Court is to now decide is whether the vehicle was driven by Smt. Sheeja Cherian or her son.

15. Even though PW1 and PW2, namely, the claimant and his wife gave evidence to the effect that the vehicle was driven by the minor, there is no substantiating evidence to prove it; and therefore, reliance of the Insurance Company on the said evidence alone to shirk responsibility from paying under the Insurance Policy can certainly not appeal to me. This is more so because, the Insurance Company is stated to have already deposited the amounts awarded by the Tribunal and the same is stated to have been received by the claimant. Further, the Insurance Company does not dispute occurrence of the accident, but only tries to project a twist by saying that it was the minor who was riding the vehicle and therefore, that they are exonerated from any liability; or that they should be given an opportunity for recovering it from the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle. I am afraid that this contention of the Insurance Company cannot appeal to to this Court in the absence of any clinching evidence to establish that the offending vehicle had been ridden by the minor; and consequently, it is repelled.

16. As regards the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant under the head 'Pain and suffering', he contends that it is exiguous, because only Rs. 30,000/-has been granted, against the claim of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Qua this aspect, one certainly must go through Ext.A8-Wound Certificate; Exts.A9 and A10-Discharge Summaries; Ext.A13 series of photographs and Ext.A14 series of Medical Bills. The Tribunal has correctly found that, as per these documents, the claimant suffered serious injuries, namely:

a) Traumatic cervical spinal cord injury

b) Central cord syndrome.

b) IVDP C3/C4, C5/C6 with cord compression.

The claimant was treated as an inpatient for seventy days and it is uncontested that he had to take follow up treatment even after that. Certainly, therefore the amount granted against 'Pain and suffering' by the Tribunal requires to be revised, which I propose to be Rs. 1,50,000/-.

17. On a similar reasoning, I am left without doubt that the amount granted towards 'Bystanders expenses' at the rate of Rs. 200/-per day, is also inadequate and that it should be revised to Rs. 300/-per day. However, with respect to "Extra nourishment", I do not think that it will be necessary for this Court to modify it in any manner, in the absence of any specific evidence having been led by the claimant.

18. As regards the disability of the claimant, Ext.A15 is a certificate issued by the "Standing Disability Assessment Board" of the Government Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. This certificate has not been assailed by the Insurance Company or by the owner or driver of the offending vehicle and it records that the claimant has suffered a permanent disability of 27%. When this is not disputed, one cannot understand why the Tribunal decided to revise it to 20%, without verifying whether functional disability was lower than what has been recorded in the said certificate. Pertinently, the Insurance Company or other respondents chose not to challenge this certificate or the percentage of disability recorded by the Government Medical College Hospital, Kottayam; nor was any evidence led by them to show that the functional disability of the claimant was lesser. This is pertinent, because the claimant was an Agriculturalist, for whom a spine injury would surely be very serious and impairing, as far as his avocation is concerned. I do not think, therefore, that revision of the percentage of disability by the Tribunal was justified.

19. In the result these appeals are ordered as under:

a) MACA No. 4689/2019 is allowed in part and the appellant is awarded Rs. 28,500/-under the head 'Loss of earnings' instead of Rs. 24,000/-; Rs. 5,100/-under the head 'Bystanders expenses', instead of Rs. 3,400/-; Rs. 1,50,000/-under the head 'Pain and Suffering'; instead of Rs. 30,000/-; and Rs. 2,15,460/-under the head 'Compensation for permanent disability' instead of Rs. 1,34,400/-. In all other respects the impugned Award will remain unaltered.

b) Further, the finding of the Tribunal, that the claimant in OP(MV) No. 1379/15 is contributorily negligent to the extent of 40% is vacated and hence the afore amounts in full will be eligible to the claimant.

c) Axiomatic to the afore findings, MACA No. 644/21 is dismissed, however, without making any order as to costs.