JUDGMENT :- J.K. Maheshwari, J. 1 The liability of the insurance company is not disputed. However, with the consent of parties, the case is heard finally. This appeal is filed by appellant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the inadequacy of the award dated 28.2.2009 passed by learned M.A.C.T., Indore in Claim Case No. 86 of 2008, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,88,400 with interest by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident occurred on 6.3.2008. 2 The appellant had preferred a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000 on account of injuries received on the head, in an accident that took place on 6.3.2008. It is said that the appellant has received the fractures on right parietotemporal bone, fracture of acromion process right scapula, fracture in right skull, fracture in left leg over knee and received injury on the jaw and chest. It is said that when he was going to his office Metrolus Pvt. Ltd. by cycle at that time an autorickshaw bearing registration No. MP 09-LN 3108 driven rashly and negligently, came to the wrong side and dashed the appellant's cycle. By virtue of the said accident appellant fell down on the spot and was admitted in the hospital. The treating Neuro Surgeon of M.Y. Hospital has given the certificate and stated that appellant having injury to the head and having aphasia due to which he is not in a position to speak and his right side is paralysed. It is further said that he is having deficiency in speaking up to 70 per cent, power of right leg 25 per cent, power of right upper limb 50 per cent and the skull deformity up to 30 per cent. The certificate of permanent disability Exh. P9 is on the record. The Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record granted total compensation of Rs. 2,88,400 bifurcating it into various heads like Rs. 2,30,400 for permanent disablement treating the total permanent disablement to the extent of 40 per cent by assuming the earnings at Rs. 3,000 per month and Rs. 10,000 for pain and suffering and special diet and Rs. 48,000 for medical expenses. 3 Mr. 2,88,400 bifurcating it into various heads like Rs. 2,30,400 for permanent disablement treating the total permanent disablement to the extent of 40 per cent by assuming the earnings at Rs. 3,000 per month and Rs. 10,000 for pain and suffering and special diet and Rs. 48,000 for medical expenses. 3 Mr. Jaiswal, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that by consent of the parties in the Lok Adalat the medical examination of appellant has further been performed under the orders of this court, through the doctors of the M.Y. Hospital, Medicine Department as well as Neurosurgeon. Documents thereof are available on record. In the light of those documents and the observations as made by the trial court that appellant is likely to be a living corpse and none else, therefore, it is a case of total loss of earning capacity by virtue of injuries received by him. In view of above, it is urged that calculation of loss of earnings ought to have been made on the basis of total loss of earning capacity. On account of said permanent disablement it is further contended that looking to the physical condition of the appellant, he requires one attendant for whole life. He is having two sons and two daughters, but on account of said accident he is not in a position to discharge essential and ritual liabilities, education and marriage of his sons and daughters by earning livelihood. Looking to all these facts, it is urged that some amount in this head and for loss of amenities of life to such a person, who is alive for living without having amenities of life may be allowed. It is further contended by him that Tribunal has committed an error in not accepting the earnings of claimant at Rs. 5,000 per month, therefore, compensation ought to have been awarded and calculated as per earnings pleaded and the statement of co-worker deposed in the court. In such circumstances compensation granted by the Tribunal is inadequate and is liable to be enhanced. 4 Mr. Manoj Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company submits that looking to the report of M.Y. Hospital, Indore regarding permanent disability of appellant, which has been produced before this court, by which it is apparent that appellant is having disability to the extent of 30 per cent. 4 Mr. Manoj Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company submits that looking to the report of M.Y. Hospital, Indore regarding permanent disability of appellant, which has been produced before this court, by which it is apparent that appellant is having disability to the extent of 30 per cent. It is also said that Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation accepting the disability to the extent of 40 per cent. In that view of the matter, it is said that the compensation as allowed by the Tribunal is just and proper. It is also said that appellant is in a position to perform the work of his daily needs, however, in such circumstances, it cannot be accepted that it is a case of complete disablement and total loss of earning capacity, therefore, argument as advanced by the appellant is of no substance and is liable to be rejected. In view of the aforesaid, prayer is made to dismiss the appeal. 5 After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of records and also going through the certificate of permanent disablement Exh. P9 of Dr. J.P. Gupta, M.S. (Surgery), M.C.H. (Neurosurgery), M.Y. Hospital posted as Assistant Professor, M.G.M. Medical College, Indore, as per such certificate appellant has received the disability towards speaking up to 70 per cent, in right upper limb 50 per cent, in right lower limb 25 per cent and skull deformity up to 30 per cent. The report of C.T. Scan of brain, which is as under: "Multiple small acute haemorrhagic contusion is noted in left frontal lobe, causing: (1) Effacement of adjacent sulcal space, Sylvius fissure and ventricles. (2) 11 mm right side, midline shift. (3) Compression on 3rd ventricle leading to mild trapped hydrocephalus. The left temporal lobe reveals hypo density with affacement adjacent sulcal apaces ventricles Sylvius fissure and cisterna. The findings are suggestive of oedema/non haemorrhagic contusion. This hypodensity is causing left temporal descending uncus herniation, which is evident by effacement of adjacent of left basal cisterna and malrotation of upper part of brain stem. Acute subarachnoid haemorrhagic is noted in left fronto and temporal lobe. Thin plate of blood attenuation subdural collection is noted in left temporoparietal region. Segmental depressed fracture right temporoparietal bone which extend inferiorly to involve mastoid part of temporal bone. Subgaleal soft tissue swelling is noted in right fronto temporoparietal region. Acute subarachnoid haemorrhagic is noted in left fronto and temporal lobe. Thin plate of blood attenuation subdural collection is noted in left temporoparietal region. Segmental depressed fracture right temporoparietal bone which extend inferiorly to involve mastoid part of temporal bone. Subgaleal soft tissue swelling is noted in right fronto temporoparietal region. Sphenoid sinus is opacified (posttraumatic). Cerebellar hemisphere show normal attenuation values. Basal ganglia and thalami appeal normal." On the basis of aforesaid report and the certificate given by Dr. Gupta, the findings of the Tribunal finds support, but in the document percentage of permanent disability has not been given, but in any case looking to the physical condition of the appellant, who is present in the court I also concur with the view taken by the trial court that the condition of appellant is not better and he is living as 'living corpse'. In such circumstances, in the opinion of this court it is a case of total loss of earning capacity on account of permanent disablement received by him and looking to the evidence available on record. In such circumstances compensation ought to have been awarded to the appellant accepting the case of total loss of earning capacity. 6 Now it is to be seen that whether the Tribunal has committed an error in assuming the earnings of appellant at Rs. 3,000 per month in place of Rs. 5,000. From the statement of the witnesses, it is not fully established that the appellant was getting Rs. 5,000, because the said employment has not been proved by calling the employer in the witness-box. In such circumstances and looking to the date of accident, i.e., 6.3.2008 the minimum earnings of a person may not be less than Rs. 100 per day, therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error in accepting the earnings of injured at Rs. 3,000 per month. Thus we accept the said earnings of the appellant thereby annually it comes to Rs. 36,000. Looking to the age of appellant, multiplier of 16 is made applicable thereby total loss of earnings comes to Rs. 5,76,000, which is being awarded in the said head. 3,000 per month. Thus we accept the said earnings of the appellant thereby annually it comes to Rs. 36,000. Looking to the age of appellant, multiplier of 16 is made applicable thereby total loss of earnings comes to Rs. 5,76,000, which is being awarded in the said head. Looking to the precarious condition of the appellant, in the opinion of this court, he is required to have one attendant for whole life, it may include the family members, i.e., wife, but for this reason wife is also not in a position to earn the livelihood for their family. In such circumstances Rs. 1,00,000 is further awarded in the said head and Rs. 1,00,000 for amenities of life and future prospects. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 48,000 towards medical expenses, which deserves to be awarded as allowed by Tribunal. In such circumstances, if we calculate the aforesaid amount then total compensation comes to Rs. 8,34,000, which is being awarded. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,88,400, if we deduct the same then remaining amount comes to Rs. 5,45,600, which is liable to be enhanced in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. 7 In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is held entitled to receive total sum of Rs. 5,45,600 in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. In the facts and circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs.