JUDGMENT :- J.K. Maheshwari, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 24.2.2007 passed by learned Second M.A.C.T., Mhow, in the Claim Case No. 42 of 2006. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,69,000 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum for the injuries sustained, arising out of the accident occurred on 3.7.2005. 2. The appellant had preferred a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 70,50,000. He had received various injuries, i.e., fracture of right femur bone and left side of abdomen, flesh from the part right knee to right hip pubic bone was removed, both testis - testicle got burst and removed from the body, urine-urinary tract punctured, vent got damaged against which during operations hollow area was created from front side of abdomen, eight major surgeries were also performed. 3. The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,69,000. The Tribunal has considered the certificate of permanent disablement, Exh. P460 of Dr. Surendra Bapat, AW 7, whereby he has opined that it is a case of 100 per cent disability. The statements of Dr. Anoop Dubey, Dr. C.L. Gurjar, Dr. Surendra Bapat and Dr. Dinesh Mundra were recorded. As per statement of Dr. Bapat it is a case of 100 per cent disablement of colostomy. So far as right hip and leg is concerned it is of 90 per cent, perineal region it is of 20 per cent, loss of potency is 50 per cent. Thus, he has opined that it is case of 100 per cent disablement. Dr. Anoop Dubey, AW 9 and Dr. Dinesh Mundra, AW 8 have opined that it is a case of 100 per cent disablement. Dr. Anoop Dubey and Dr. Dinesh Mundra opined that it is a case of disablement to the extent of 85 per cent and 84 per cent. Dr. C.L.Gurjar is the doctor in whose hospital the injured was got admitted and various operations were performed. After consideration of these documents it is opined by the Tribunal that it may be a case of 30 per cent disablement of whole body and Rs. Dr. C.L.Gurjar is the doctor in whose hospital the injured was got admitted and various operations were performed. After consideration of these documents it is opined by the Tribunal that it may be a case of 30 per cent disablement of whole body and Rs. 40,000 has been allowed in the head of future loss of earnings due to the said permanent disablement assuming his earning as Rs. 2,000 per month and applying the multiplier of 17. Rs. 2,80,000 is awarded in the head of medical expenses, towards hospital bills Rs. 40,000, in the head of special diet Rs. 2,000, in the head of pain and suffering Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 2,000 in the head of conveyance has been awarded. However, the total sum of Rs. 3,69,000 has been awarded by the Tribunal. 4. It is to be noted here that the appellant was produced in the court to demonstrate the fact that it is a case of total disablement because he has come in the court with the assistance of two attendants. Thus looking to the statements of various doctors and the certificates by the consent of the advocates present it was directed to call a report of the Medical Board regarding disablement of the injured. The report of the Medical Board has been received, whereby it is a case of 80 per cent disablement looking to the various injuries received by the injured. 5. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, negligence in driving the offending vehicle, and liability to pay compensation, etc., because the Tribunal has already recorded the findings in favour of the appellant and none of those findings have been challenged at the instance of the respondents, i.e., owner/driver/insurance company by filing cross-appeal or cross- objection. In that view of the matter it is not necessary to burden the judgment by detailing the facts on those issues. 6. Mr. Jaiswal, counsel appearing for the appellant submits that as per the certificate of Medical Board, it is opined that there was a comminuted fracture in the right thigh with crush injury. It is also opined that due to undergoing multiple admissions and operations there is gross deformity in the right thigh and buttock. There is also shortening of leg by 2½ inch. In the right thigh discharge of sinus is seen. It is also opined that due to undergoing multiple admissions and operations there is gross deformity in the right thigh and buttock. There is also shortening of leg by 2½ inch. In the right thigh discharge of sinus is seen. Without any support patient cannot walk, however, it is opined that it is a case of category serve disability. In view of the aforesaid it is said that the position of the injured is desolate. He cannot perform his daily routine work without assistance and cannot live without the help of others. Now he is not in a position to earn anything. He has lost all the humanities and amenities of life, including married life. In view of the aforesaid, looking to the statement of doctors and the certificate of the Medical Board, it is prayed that it may be accepted as a case of total future loss of earnings due to the said permanent disablement. On the point of earning it is said that the statements of Lokendra Singh, AW 4 and Amit Rai, AW 5, have been recorded, whereby it is apparent that the injured was doing the work of computer operator and was earning approximately Rs. 6,000 per month. But the Tribunal has disbelieved the same without any plausible reason. However, it is contended by him that earnings of the injured may be accepted to the extent of Rs. 5,000 per month and future loss of earnings may be computed accordingly, applying the multiplier method as specified in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further submitted that looking to the number of injuries the amount of Rs. 5,000 as awarded by the Tribunal in the head of pain and suffering is inadequate and meagre, which is also liable to be enhanced. It is also said that the amount allowed in the head of special diet and conveyance Rs. 2,000 each is inadequate, which is further liable to be enhanced. It is also contended that the medical bills of Rs. 3,93,984 are available on record, but the Claims Tribunal has merely allowed Rs. 3,20,000 in the said head without any plausible reason. The remaining medical expenses may further be directed to be paid. In view of the said submissions the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has been assailed, because it is meagre and deserves enhancement. 7. On the other hand, Mr. 3,20,000 in the said head without any plausible reason. The remaining medical expenses may further be directed to be paid. In view of the said submissions the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has been assailed, because it is meagre and deserves enhancement. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company submits that the statement of Dr. Surendra Bapat cannot be accepted, because he is not the treating doctor. So far as the certificate of permanent disablement given by Medical Board, which is to the extent of 80 per cent in furtherance to the direction of this court, is concerned, he is not in a position to say anything against such certificate because it is an opinion of experts. It is further contended by him that the Tribunal while computing the future loss of earnings has rightly accepted the earning of injured as Rs. 2,000, because no cogent evidence of his earning is available on record. The statements of Lokendra Singh, AW 4 and Amit Rai, AW 5, has rightly been disbelieved by Tribunal because no document regarding education of computer operator or his skill has been produced by the appellant before the trial court or even before this court. Therefore, as per the certificate of permanent disablement commensurate to the earning Rs. 2,000 per month compensation under the head of future loss of earnings may be calculated. With respect to the medical bills of Rs. 3,93,984 he is not in a position to dispute such factual aspect. In view of the aforesaid it is urged that the compensation as awarded by the impugned award is just and proper, or otherwise, this court may calculate the just and reasonable compensation. 8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, first of all the percentage of disablement is required to be assessed. Statements of the doctors as well as the certificate of permanent disablement produced by Medical Board under the orders of this court have been gone through. Dr. C.L. Gurjar, PW 6, is the doctor in whose hospital the injured was hospitalised and various operations were performed. He has described about the injuries received by the injured. The certificate of permanent disablement, Exh. P460, has been given by Dr. Dr. C.L. Gurjar, PW 6, is the doctor in whose hospital the injured was hospitalised and various operations were performed. He has described about the injuries received by the injured. The certificate of permanent disablement, Exh. P460, has been given by Dr. S. Bapat, AW 7, who in his certificate opined the disablement in different compartments for various individual injuries, but it is opined by him that it is a case of 100 per cent disablement. Dr. Anoop Dubey, AW 9, who has opined as per his certificate of permanent disablement, Exh. P648, that it is a case of disablement to the extent of 85 per cent. Dr. Dinesh Mundra, AW 8, opined that it is a case of disablement of 84 per cent. By the consent of the learned advocates after going through the certificates of permanent disablement and the statements of doctors, as per order of this court dated 15.2.2010, the certificate regarding disablement of the injured was called for from the Medical Board, which is available on record, whereby the injured is having 80 per cent disablement and is in the category severe. I have seen the certificate of Medical Board, whereby three categories have been specified; first indicates mild disablement, second indicates moderate disablement and last category indicates severe. However, it is apparent that it is a case in which the injured appellant is required to be served by others and shall remain dependent for whole life, due to the injuries received arising out of the said accident. Undisputedly, the Board has opined that it is a case of disablement to the extent of 80 per cent, but such disablement is of the category 'severe'. Therefore, the appellant shall remain dependent for whole life on assistance. He has lost all the amenities of life, thus in the opinion of this court, it is a case of complete loss of earnings. Thus there is no reason to disbelieve the documents and the statements of the doctors and the certificate of permanent disablement to opine that it is a case of total loss of earnings. 9. Now it is to be seen that on the date of accident what was the earning of the injured. As per pleadings, it is averred that injured was a computer operator and working with two persons, namely, Amit Rai and Lokendra Singh. 9. Now it is to be seen that on the date of accident what was the earning of the injured. As per pleadings, it is averred that injured was a computer operator and working with two persons, namely, Amit Rai and Lokendra Singh. As per the certificate given by these persons injured was earning approximately Rs. 6,000 per month. The Tribunal has disbelieved their statements and found that the injured might have been earning Rs. 2,000 per month. In view of the statements of these two persons as well as the statement of the injured himself, it is apparent that he was working as computer operator, though his earning has not been established by the cogent evidence. Thus treating him to be a skilled worker on the date of accident we can accept his earning as per daily wages prevalent to a skilled worker on the said date, that is, July 2005. However, his monthly earning may safely be accepted to the extent of Rs. 2,500 per month, thereby the annual earning comes to Rs. 30,000. Considering it to be a case of total loss of earnings and looking to the age of injured, i.e., 22 years, if multiplier of 17 is made applicable, then future loss of earnings due to the said permanent disablement comes to the tune of Rs. 5,10,000. If we deduct Rs. 40,000 as allowed by the Tribunal in the said head then remaining amount in the head of future loss of earnings comes to the tune of Rs. 4,70,000 which is liable to be enhanced in the said head. 10. It is seen from the record that undisputedly the medical bills of Rs. 73,984 has not been allowed while granting the amount in the head of medical expenses. In that view of the matter by rounding up the same Rs. 75,000 in the head of medical expenses is further enhanced. It is also seen from the record that numerous operations of the injured were performed during his treatment. To bypass the waste colostomy was performed by cutting the side veins of stomach and rectum. Looking to these operations and looking to the injuries, during treatment the injured may have suffered lot of pain and suffering, but Tribunal has allowed Rs. It is also seen from the record that numerous operations of the injured were performed during his treatment. To bypass the waste colostomy was performed by cutting the side veins of stomach and rectum. Looking to these operations and looking to the injuries, during treatment the injured may have suffered lot of pain and suffering, but Tribunal has allowed Rs. 5,000 in the said head, however, in the opinion of this court, looking to the number of operations and the fact that the injured has to suffer for whole life Rs. 50,000 further allowed in the head of pain and suffering. The injured has lost all the amenities of life, however, considering the aforesaid in the opinion of this court Rs. 50,000 further deserves to be granted in the said head. In the heads of special diet, conveyance and attendant charges Rs. 25,000 further directed to be allowed to the injured. In view of the foregoing discussion the total compensation including the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal comes to the tune of Rs. 10,39,000 and the compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal comes to the tune of Rs. 6,70,000. 11. It is seen from the record that the total medical expenses are approximately of Rs. 4,00,000, but the Tribunal has only directed to pay 20 per cent amount in cash. Such direction prima facie seems to be unreasonable, because all other medical expenses incurred by the injured are required to be reimbursed then and there. In that view of the matter out of total compensation Rs. 4,39,000 deserves to be released in cash and the remaining amount of compensation Rs. 6,00,000 along with interest be kept in the fixed deposit. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application till its realization. In the facts and circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs.