JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 4th September, 2000 rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur whereby the learned Tribunal decreed an amount of Rs. 4,92,950/- in favour of the appellant. Dissatisfied with this amount, the appellant preferred this appeal for the enhancement of compensation. 2. The background facts in a nut-shell are thus : That on 13th January 1996, at about 4:30 pm the appellant-claimant Madan lal was travelling in a Bus bearing registration No. RNP 678 from Sanganer to his village Mohabatpura. There being no room inside the Bus, the appellant went on the roof of the same. It is alleged that no sooner did the Bus reach near Gurjari Ki Talai, Madrampura, the Bus on account of being driven rashly and negligently at a fast speed went out of driver's control and to control the same, smartly applied the breaks jolting appellant who was tossed from the roof and fell on the road, sustained injuries all over his body. He not only sustained simple and grievous injuries but suffered 100% disability. The appellant filed a claim petition, which was albeit, decree as aforesaid but the appellant being dissatisfied with the said amount challenged the same and hence, this appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has restricted his arguments only to one aspect and contended that the appellant was a driver and on account of having sustained injuries in his head and other parts of the body, he suffered 100% disability. The Tribunal albeit, has awarded Rs. 4,92,950/- for the loss of income including reimbursement of medical bills but totally lost sight of future medical expenses, deprivation of marital relationship, physical pain, suffering and trauma and did not award even a penny towards these heads. On account of 100% disability, neither he could discharge his routine functions of everyday nor is he able to work as a driver nor can he act independently. On the contrary, he needs timely check-up and proper medication so as to make himself enable to perform routine work. Hence, an additional amount for future medical treatment, physical pain, suffering and trauma may be awarded. He has cited one judgment viz. 2006 R.A.R. 43 (Raj.), Kunal Gaurav Saxena (Minor) v. Shri Anil Kumar & Ors. , in support thereof. 5. Hence, an additional amount for future medical treatment, physical pain, suffering and trauma may be awarded. He has cited one judgment viz. 2006 R.A.R. 43 (Raj.), Kunal Gaurav Saxena (Minor) v. Shri Anil Kumar & Ors. , in support thereof. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, in contra, has defended the impugned award and called the same to be just and proper. He further canvassed that the learned Tribunal while passing an award took care of all the aspects and decreed a reasonable and just amount in his favour which needs no enhancement. Apart that, he has also canvassed that the appellant was travelling on the roof of the Bus, which was not permissible under the provisions of Section 123 of Motor Vehicles Act. Had he not travelled on the roof of the Bus, the accident would not have occurred. Hence, the appellant was also liable for contributory negligence. Learned Tribunal has already passed an award of full amount in his favour and contributory negligence has been fastened on him but under the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount under the award does not require to be enhanced and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. Having ruminated over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the impugned award and other relevant material on record, it is noticed that the appellant sustained head injury and the fracture of parietal bone, which required surgical intervention. The appellant was admitted in the Hospital. Medical Board's certificate Ex./6 issued by Rehabilitation Research Centre, SMS Hospital, Jaipur suggests that the appellant sustained head injury with a fracture of parietal bone on account of fall from the roof of the Bus. This accident caused "post head injury quadriplegia with 100% disability". Medical Board has suggested that due to 100% disability or due to quadriplegia, activities of daily living will not be possible. The Board also suggested that the victim shall not be able to work as driver. 7. Learned counsel has not assailed as to what has been awarded to him by the learned Tribunal, but he has prayed to grant additional compensation towards future medical expenses and for physical pain, suffering and trauma. He got a prolonged treatment resulting into suffering in the past and on account of 100% disability is suffering in the present and shall keep on suffering in future also. He got a prolonged treatment resulting into suffering in the past and on account of 100% disability is suffering in the present and shall keep on suffering in future also. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, per se, has force, but it does not stand substantiated by any evidence. The appellant has not produced any opinion of the Medical Board or of Doctor nor any Doctor has appeared in the witness box and deposed i that the appellant would require future medical treatment also, which will incur expenses. Learned counsel cited one judgment dated 12th November, 2009, rendered in the case of Babulal v. Amin Khan @ Jan Mohammad & Ors., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 191 of 2000 , which is based on the judgment of this Court reported in 2006 R.A.R. 43 (Raj.) (supra). 8. Having gone through both the judgments, it is found that the facts and circumstances of these two cases are altogether distinct from the case on hand. It is true, that in both the cases, the victims suffered 100% disability but the nature of disability and other factors adjacent to are not the same. In the case of Babulal v. Amin Khan & Jan Mohammad & ors. (supra), which was based on Kunal Gaurav Saxena v. Anil Kumar & ors. (supra) this Court granted an ad hoc enhancement on account of steep rise in prices and the cost of living and medical treatment. In the case of Babulal v. Amin Khan @ Jan Mohammad & ors. (supra), the appellant was only 25 years old at the time of accident, he was well educated and possessed post graduate qualification. He had 20 years old wife and long journey of life to travel. Similarly, in the case of Kunal Gaurav Saxena v. Anil Kumar & ors. (supra), he was only 11 years old lad and equally had a very long journey of life to travel. But, in the instant case, the appellant was 30 years at the time of accident in the year 1996, who might have turned gray after the expiry of 13 years more. Albeit, the appellant was not very well educated and working simply as a driver on a vehicle. He has also not produced any certificate of Doctor that the appellant shall be requiring future medical treatment so as to make himself capable of performing routine activities. Albeit, the appellant was not very well educated and working simply as a driver on a vehicle. He has also not produced any certificate of Doctor that the appellant shall be requiring future medical treatment so as to make himself capable of performing routine activities. But at the same time, this aspect cannot be lost sight of that he is permanently 100% disabled and he shall be undoubtedly or undeniably requiring medical treatment in future. When the ordinary person at the age of 45 or 50 years and thereafter, requires regular medical check-up and needs money to incur expenses on medicines to keep himself fit, it can safely be presumed that a person who is 100% disabled on account of head injury quadriplegia shall certainly require future medical treatment and he will have to incur expenses thereon. It goes without saying that the entire future life of the appellant has gone to an halt. On account of steep price hike and increase in the cost of living and medical treatment, I also deem it just and proper to grant an ad hoc enhancement of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards future medical treatment, physical pain, suffering and trauma as in the case of Kunal Gaurav Saxena (supra) and Babulal (supra). 9. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie and Anr., 2005(2) WLC (SC) Civil 149 : 2005 ACJ 1131 cited by the learned counsel for the respondent do not debar such an enhancement in the impugned award. 10. The amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,92,950/- under the award is neither abysmally low nor abysmally high. However, keeping in view the future medical expenses and his sufferings during the past, present and also in the future, it seems quite apt to grant an additional amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- more. 11. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed In part. The amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 4,92,950/- to Rs. 5,92,950/-. The appellant is held entitled to claim interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the amount of compensation is actually realized. Rest of the terms under the award shall remain unchanged. The impugned award stands modified as indicated hereinabove. 12. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******