JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed being aggrieved by an Award and Decree dated 20-9-1999 in O.P.No.647 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Rangareddy District at Saroornagar, Hyderabad. 2. The appellant is the claimant. According to him, he was working as a Warden in a private school and getting Rs.1,000/- per month. While so, on 11-4-1995 at about 10.00 a.m., when he was riding the Scooter bearing No.AP9E 4639 towards Hayathnagar, a lorry bearing No. AHH 900 came to the main road from a by-lane, in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed against his scooter; as a result, he fell down from the scooter and received bleeding injuries on his head and left leg. He was shifted to Osmania General Hospital and from there to Apollo Hospital on 13-4-1995. He was in intensive care unit for some time and was discharged from Apollo hospital on 4-5-1995. He underwent Surgery for head injury in Apollo hospital, but he has not fully recovered. He suffered memory loss due to head injury. His left leg got fractured and steel rod was fixed. He cannot lead a normal life. Hayathnagar police registered a case in Crime No.59/95 under Section 337 IPC against the driver of the lorry. Therefore, he laid a claim seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. Though the accident was not denied, the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry was denied. However, after an elaborate consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the lorry was rash and negligent and was responsible for the accident, but granted only an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant that in the teeth of medical evidence under Exs.A-7 and A-8 vis-a-vis the deposition of P.W.2, the compensation awarded is neither just nor proper and it is a meagre one. Ex.A-8 read with the oral evidence of P.W.2 would show that the appellant-claimant suffered head injury and also suffered memory loss and he is required to use medicines throughout his life. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned Award passed by the Tribunal. 5. Ex.A-8 read with the oral evidence of P.W.2 would show that the appellant-claimant suffered head injury and also suffered memory loss and he is required to use medicines throughout his life. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned Award passed by the Tribunal. 5. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned Award and other material made available on record. 6. The accident occurred on 11-4-1995. The Certificate dated 29-6-1995 attached to Ex.A-8 issued by the Consultant, Department of Orthopedics, Apollo Hospitals, Hyderabad shows that the claimant suffered minimal disability (memory loss) and he has to take anti-convulsants life long. Further, the claimant was operated in the Apollo Hospital and he was an in-patient in the hospital from 13-4-1995 to 4-5-1995 and thereafter also intermittently he was treated by the Apollo Hospital as per the evidence of P.W.2. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that though the claimant testified that he received grievous injuries and he is required to take drugs for prolonged period because of concussion in brain and that medicines may cost him Rs. 3,000/- per annum, the same appears to be exaggerative, is baseless. There is overwhelming evidence to show that the claimant suffered concussion in the brain and as such, he is required to use medicines throughout his life. P.W.2-Medical Officer, when he was examined before the Court, deposed the same thing. The Tribunal could not have assessed anything by observing the claimant externally when he was present in the Court in a case of this nature. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the finding of the Tribunal that the evidence of P.W.2 that the appellant-claimant required Rs.3,000/- per annum towards medicines appears to be exaggerative is liable be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Therefore, apart from what was granted towards medical expenses already met and other heads, such as, pain and suffering, loss of earnings etc., I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled, at least, for an amount of Rs.2,000/- per annum till he attains the age of 58 years i.e. for 35 years, since the claimant was aged about 23 years at the time of accident for meeting future medical expenses. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to another sum of Rs.70,000/- towards future medical expenses. 7. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to another sum of Rs.70,000/- towards future medical expenses. 7. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,70,000/-. The appellant is entitled for interest at 8% per annum, on the enhanced compensation, from the date of filing of the appeal i.e. 6-3-2000 till the date of payment. There shall be no order as to costs.