( 1 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal should not have awarded Rs. 5,19,418/- towards loss of earning capacity, Rs. 1 lac on account of permanent disability and Rs. 75,000/- on account of pain and sufferings. ( 2 ) THE appellant has not disputed in his arguments compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- awarded towards reimbursement of medical expenses. ( 3 ) I have considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. In this regard the relevant findings of learned Tribunal in paragraph 20 and part of paragraph 21 of the impugned award are reproduced below:"20. The medical condition of the claimant was further explained by PW 4 Dr. Amitabh Goel from M/s. Metro Multispeciality Hospital, Noida (UP ). He categorically testified that due to the brain injuries, the speech power of the patient has been irreparably affected and he cannot speak fluently. It is pertinent to mention here that the claimant has been under regular medical treatment of Dr. Amitabh Goel right from the beginning. On Court question, he explained that in medical jurisprudence, the case of the patient is that of left hemiperitic, which is described as a condition where the patient is stable but physically disabled. On further Court question, Dr. Amitab Goel firmly stated that patient s suffering from the kinds of injuries as in this case, would show improvement to whatever extent they could within a span of 2-3 years from the date of suffering from an injury but thereafter, their condition becomes stable and he categorically stated that it was unlikely that the claimant would regain his normal speech power as it might have been prior to the accident. Apart from the speech power, corroborating the evidence of the claimant, Dr. Goel testified that the patient is unable to use his left hand for any purpose as he cannot move his fingers and in this regard too, he categorically testified that even regular physiotherapy is not going to improve the motor movement except that he advised that patient should be treated by an occupational therapist, which would help the patient regarding his motor movement so far as the left hand is concerned. The doctor, however, ruled out the patient suffering from regular or intermittent memory lapse. The doctor, however, ruled out the patient suffering from regular or intermittent memory lapse. I may state that I am unable to find any element of bias in the evidence of PW 4 Dr. A mitabh Goel and to my mind, his evidence makes a lasting impression about the status of physical disabilities afflicting the claimant. ""21. It may be indicated that claimant is B. Com, GNIIT qualified in the field of E. Com, Com. , D. Com. and quality management. He was in the first year of his MBA when he met with this accident and it is in the evidence that be has not been able to complete the same. Perusal of his initial appointment letter Ex. PW 3/b would show that inter alia the duties and responsibilities of the claimant included extensive PR work in the nature or arranging telephone interviews and participating in resource management and giving suggestions to improve working environment. I may say fortunately the employer company has been kind enough and has redrafted the agreement Ex. PW 3/c albeit with more or less same nature of duties except that evidently the claimant is now not in a position to engage himself in various PR exercises. Further, the annual emoluments of the claimant have been drastically cut from Rs. 3,29,280/- to Rs. 1,62,000/- on gross basis. Mr. Jain, learned Counsel for the claimant here made an impassioned plea that claimant who was a debater and engaged in active sports, cannot involve himself in any such activities. So much so that he faces social ostriacism. He stressed the point that operation of computers requires use of both hands and claimant cannot use his left hand. " ( 4 ) AS per evidence before the learned Tribunal the respondent claimant had been cleared for appointment as Program Analyst in Silicon Valley Systech, california, USA and was waiting for clearance of his HIBI visa from US Embassy. He was 25 years old at the time of accident and had a brilliant carrier with his educational qualifications being a B. Com. and GNIIT qualified in the field of e. Com, Com. C. Com and quality management. He was also doing MBA. In fact the learned Counsel for the appellant admitted that learned Tribunal was right in awarding Rs. 2,02,400/- on account of loss of salary-leave as a result of the said accident. and GNIIT qualified in the field of e. Com, Com. C. Com and quality management. He was also doing MBA. In fact the learned Counsel for the appellant admitted that learned Tribunal was right in awarding Rs. 2,02,400/- on account of loss of salary-leave as a result of the said accident. He was working from home on half salary. ( 5 ) AS per statement of Dr. Amitabh Goel, the respondent/claimant was unable to speak properly having suffered brain injury. His reading power had been adversely affected and he was unable to convey and effectively communicate his feelings and thoughts to others. He had suffered memory loss and was slow in responding to queries. As per the Doctor it was unlikely that the respondent would regain his normal speech power as he had prior to the accident. The doctor also testified that the respondent was unable to use his left hand for any purpose as he could not move his fingers. His left leg was also drastically weakened. In view of the nature of job, his educational qualifications, the age, the salary the said respondent was earning and the medical deficiencies and disabilities suffered by the respondent No. 1, I feel that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and fair and adequate. ( 6 ) I do not think there is any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that without a specific disability certificate from a Government hospital, no compensation on account of disability should have been granted by the learned Tribunal. The respondent claimant has relied upon the Doctor who was treating him. The said Doctor was also cross-examined. In case the appellant wanted to dispute his testimony, it could have produced other Doctors in support. There is no reason to disbelieve and discard statement of Dr. Amitabh Goel. ( 7 ) IN view of the evidence on record, learned Tribunal has held that the respondent claimant had suffered loss of earning capacity to the extent of 10% only. The compensation awarded is just, fair and reasonable. Ordered accordingly. .