Judgment :- This is a claimants appeal. The claim petition was filed by Sri.B. Raghavendra @ Raghu through his wife Sujatha, as he has become disabled on account of 100% loss of memory due to injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. On 2.7.1999 at about 12.15 p.m. The claimant was driving his car near palamakalupalle village on Bangarupalayam-Palamner road on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus bearing No.KA-02 9229, dashed against his car, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to Chittor Hospital and thereafter to Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore. He was there as an in-patient from 2.7.1999 to 19.7.1999. He was shifted from Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore to Bangalore. He was treated by Dr. Ramanarao and also by Dr. B.P. Mruthyunjayanna, a well known Neurologist. 2. The claimant was working as an Executive Director in a company known as Vishnu forge Industries Limited, Bangalore and he was drawing a salary of Rs. 17,000/-in addition to other perks. 3. The insurance company admitting the insurance policy contended that the accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus. 4. The trial court framed the following issues for its consideration: a) Whether the petitioner proves that the accident occurred on 2.7.1999 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus bearing No. KA-02 9229? b) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the amount of compensation? And who is responsible for the payment of compensation? c) What order? 5. In order to prove their respective contentions, on behalf of the claimants, the wife of the claimant was examined as PW.1, Dr.Ramana Rao and Dr.B.P. Mrutyunjayanna were examined as PW2 & 3 and one Divakar was examined on behalf of Vishnu Forge Industries Limited as PW.4. The claimant relied upon Ex.P1 to P32. On behalf of the insurance company no oral evidence was let in. However, the insurance policy was marked as Ex.R1. 6. The Tribunal considering the evidence let in by the parties held issue No.1 in affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs.8,53,760/-along with interest at 6% p.a from the date of petition till realization. Not being satisfied with the award of the Tribunal the present appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation on various heads. We have heard the counsel for both sides. 7. Not being satisfied with the award of the Tribunal the present appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation on various heads. We have heard the counsel for both sides. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court has committed a serious error in not considering the actual Income of the claimant and his future prospectus while determining the compensation under the head of loss of future earning capacity and that the compensation awarded under the medical expenses, incidental charges, future medical expenses, attendant charges and loss of amenities of life are also on lower side. Therefore, he requests the court to re-appreciate the entire evidence and award just and proper compensation. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 9. Having heard the counsel for the parties, the only point that arise’s for our consideration is as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper or does it call for any interference. 10. Considering the documents produced before the Tribunal, there is no dispute with regard to the age of the claimant and nature of injuries and 100% disability caused to him on account of loss of memory power and other injuries to the body. 11. The Tribunal has recorded the following injuries as per Ex.P3: “Left fronto parietal acute sub-dural haematoma producing midline shift of 1.1c.m and effacing the brainstem cisterns; respiratory track infection, coma scale, Laceration involving the right pinna.” PW.2 in his evidence has stated that on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant fronto parietal craniotomy and evacuation of the haematoma was done. By operation the damaged portion of the skull was removed and the claimant has lost his vision due to damage to optic nerve. He has also stated that the petitioner is not able to take care of his own affairs as he suffers from 100% total disability and his earning capacity is also reduced completely. 12. Considering the evidence of PW1 to 3, we are of the opinion that on account of the portion of the skull being removed and injury sustained to the head, the claimant has suffered 100% disability and there is loss of 100% memory. 12. Considering the evidence of PW1 to 3, we are of the opinion that on account of the portion of the skull being removed and injury sustained to the head, the claimant has suffered 100% disability and there is loss of 100% memory. It has also come in the evidence that due to removed of a portion of the skull his brain is exposed and is without any protection. Under the circumstances we are of the opinion that he is nothing but a living vegetable and has to be under the care and custody of someone for the rest of his life. 13. The claimant has proved by producing documents in regard to the nature of his job and income. The claimant was working as an Executive Director in M/s. Vishnu Forge Industries, Bangalore which is proved by examining PW.4, the Managing Director of the said company. The claimant also produced the document to show his last drawn salary, which shows Rs.17,555/-p.m. According to PW.4 the claimant was also eligible to get an increment of Rs.1000/-p.a and he being an Executive Director was also getting perks like rent free accommodation and fuel expenses etc. He was aged about 45 years. The Tribunal though admits the salary stated by the claimant, has considered the net salary as Rs.12,300/-for the purpose of calculation of future loss of earning without considering the future prospectus of the claimant. When the claimant was aged about 45 years and was working as an Executive Director in a well-known company. We are of the opinion that he had future prospectus in his life and therefore, we have to consider what would be the probable enhancement of his income on account of the post held by him at the age of 45. 14. Relying upon the Judgment of the Apex Court I the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Carlie & another reported in 2005 ACJ 1131 and keeping in mind the ratio that where the injured has suffered 100% disability, the logic applicable to fatal accidents can be made applicable in an appropriate cases. Taking note of all relevant facts, we have to consider the quantum of compensation under the head of loss of future earning capacity. Admittedly, the claimant was getting a salary of Rs.17,555/-p.m. and he was aged 45 years on the date of the accident. Taking note of all relevant facts, we have to consider the quantum of compensation under the head of loss of future earning capacity. Admittedly, the claimant was getting a salary of Rs.17,555/-p.m. and he was aged 45 years on the date of the accident. There was every possibility of the claimant earning higher salary if he had continued in the same designation. However, we have to keep in mind vicissitudes of life. Therefore, in the absence of any concrete evidence with regard to the future prospects of the claimant, we are constrained to consider salary of Rs.17.555/-p.m as the gross salary. Out of Rs.17,555/-we have to give deduction to the Income Tax, Professional Tax etc. if we deduct Professional Tax and Income Tax and other incidental charges, we are of the opinion the net income to be taken cannot be less than Rs. 15,000/-p.m. Considering his age as 45, we have to apply the multiplier of 14 in terms of Sarla Vermas Case reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 . If we consider the income of him as Rs.15,000/-p.m., the annual loss of income would be Rs.1,80,000/-and if we apply multiplier 14, the total future loss of earning would be Rs.25,20,000/-taking into consideration the disability of the claimant as 100%. It is to be observed at this stage, that the respondent has not disputed 100% disability caused to the claimant in the accident. Therefore, we are inclined to consider the loss of future income at Rs.25,20,000/-. 15. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-under the head of pain and suffering considering the nature of injuries sustained by him right from the year 1999, we are inclined to award sum of Rs.1,00,000/-under the head pain and suffering as against Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded sum of Rs.3,00,000/-under the head medical expenses. Considering the bills produced by the claimant before the Tribunal, we do not see any justification to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head medical expenses. Accordingly, we retain the amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards conveyance and nourishment during the treatment period. Considering the nature of treatment, as the same is continued, we are inclined to award a sum of Rs. 50,000/-under the said head. 16. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/-under the head of future medical expenses. Accordingly, we retain the amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards conveyance and nourishment during the treatment period. Considering the nature of treatment, as the same is continued, we are inclined to award a sum of Rs. 50,000/-under the said head. 16. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/-under the head of future medical expenses. We have seen the evidence of PW.2 & 3 the doctors who have treated and are treating the claimant even today. According to them the petitioner has to undergo a major surgery which has been estimated at Rs.2,00,000/-at the time of giving evidence. But it has been argued before us that on account of risk involved the appellant is uncertain of undergoing surgery, considering the nature of surgery required to his brain. Therefore, we are not inclined to consider the evidence of the doctor in regard to the surgery expenses to be incurred towards future surgery. 17. It has come in the evidence that every month, the petitioner is required to spend considerable amount towards the medical expenses as the accident is of the year 1999 and considering that he is under constant treatment, we are inclined to award a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-as against the award of Rs.75,000/-passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-under the head loss of amenities which according to us is too meager. Considering the background of the claimant and that he was holding a post of Executive Director in a well known company and has been confined to the house without enjoying the rest of the life, we are inclined to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-under the head loss of amenities in life as well as conjugal life. 18. It has come in the evidence that the petitioner on his own cannot take care of himself for the rest of his life, either his wife or some attendant is required to be with him all the 24 hours in a day. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head attendant charges. On this head we are inclined to award Rs.1,00,000/-towards the future attendant charges. Thus in all the appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.33,70,000/-with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. 19. In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The total compensation of Rs.33,70,000/-is awarded as against Rs.8,53,760/-be the Tribunal. On this head we are inclined to award Rs.1,00,000/-towards the future attendant charges. Thus in all the appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.33,70,000/-with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. 19. In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The total compensation of Rs.33,70,000/-is awarded as against Rs.8,53,760/-be the Tribunal. Out of the compensation awarded in this appeal, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-which has been awarded under the head future medical expenses and future attendant charges shall not carry interest and for the rest of the amount, the respondent/insurance company shall pay the interest at 6% p.a from the date of the claim petition till deposit. 20. At this stage the appellant’s wife who is the care taker of the appellant is present before the court, states that she is having two daughters who have attained the age of marriage and she has to celebrate their marriage. It is also her case that they are studying in colleges and that she has incurred loan towards the medical treatment of her husband. She further request the court to release sum of Rs.10,00,000/-out of the compensation enhanced by this court, and rest of the amount be deposited in the bank and permit her to operate the account as the appellant is unable to operate the same. She further submits whenever the marriage of her daughters are fixed. She may be given permission to withdraw the money by approaching this court. 21. In the circumstance we direct the Tribunal to release only a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-only to the wife of the appellant for immediate necessity and medical expenses. Rest of the amount along with accrued interest shall be invested in any Nationalized Bank for an initial period of five years. We grant liberty for the appellant’s wife to move this court for withdrawal of monies in order to celebrate the marriage of her children or for their education or for any other valid reasons. She is entitled to withdraw the periodical interest for the maintenance of the appellant and the family.