JUDGMENT The appellant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondent claiming compensation for the loss sustained due to the injuries in a motor vehicle accident. Claim petition was allowed in part granting compensation of Rs. 3,26,600/with interest at 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the quantum of award, the petitioner has preferred this appeal. 2. Heard the learned Counsel on both sides and perused the record. 3. Smt. C.G. Asha Devi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that, the learned member of the Tribunal has erred in the matter of quantification of the award and the amount awarded is meager sum and hence, enhancement is called for. 4. Sri D. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand would contend that, in view of the disposal of MFA No. 371 of 2008, dated 11-7-2008, that too, after hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant herein, this appeal for enhancement, is untenable. Learned Counsel made submissions in support of the findings and conclusion of the Tribunal in the impugned award. 5. The accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and the liability to pay the compensation are not in dispute. Perused the record. 6. Respondent ha9 questioned the impugned award herein in MFA No. 371 of 2008. The said appeal was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 11-7-2008. A perusal of the judgment would indicate that, both the sides have not brought to the notice of the Court about the pendency of this appeal. The contention of the owner of the bus has only been noticed and having found to be devoid of merit, the appeal was dismissed. In the said judgment, there is no reference to any claim/contention of the present appellant. As such, mere dismissal of the appeal filed by the present respondent cannot come in the way of the appellant prosecuting this appeal for disposal on its merit. Hence, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent that, the appeal is untenable on account of dismissal of MFA No. 371 of 2008 on 11-7-2008, is devoid of merit and stands rejected. 7. The only point for consideration is: Whether the compensation awarded is just compensation? 8. Wound certificate is at Ex. P. 1. The discharge summaries are at Exs. 7. The only point for consideration is: Whether the compensation awarded is just compensation? 8. Wound certificate is at Ex. P. 1. The discharge summaries are at Exs. P. 3 and P. 5. The obtaining of treatment for the accidental injuries is well-established from the evidence of P.W. 2-Dr. Mithun Sattur and the medical records, which have been duly marked. P.W. 2 has deposed that the injured was admitted in Nimhans on 8-2-2006 and was treated till 4-3-2006 for the following injuries: (a) Glasgow Comascale (G.C.S) of 11/15. (b) Right ear bleed. (c) Left frontal acute, subdural hematoma, (Rt) parietal elevated fracture and linear fracture of right temporal and occipital and (Lt) parietal. It was found that at the time of discharge, the patient was in G.C.S. of 11/15 and had right upper limb weakness of grade 2/5. The follow up neuropsychological assessment made on 28-2-2007 has revealed significant cognitive impairment including recall, working memory, fluency personality changes and a motivation. P.W. 2 has examined the patient on 8-3-2007 and found the following impairments: (a) Impairment related to language 25% to 39%. (b) Mental status impairment 30% to 49%. (c) Emotional and behavioural impairment 30% to 49%. (d) Station and gait impairment 20% to 39%. (e) Impaired (Rt) upper limb 1% to 9%. The C.T. Scan done on 8-3-2007 has shown hypoden sities in both frontal lobes and as a result, he has assessed neurological disability to be about 40% to the whole body. The evidence of P.W. 2 is well-supported by medical record. Though P.W. 2 has been cross-examined, other than putting suggestions which are general in nature, nothing material has been elicited to disbelieve his testimony. In the circumstances, evidence of P.W. 2 has to be accepted and as a result it has to be 'held that the appellant has suffered partial permanent disability of 40%. Appellant had sustained head injury. He was incapable of deposing in the Court and hence, his wife has deposed as P.W. 1. P.W. 2 has also stated about the inability of the injured patient to depose in the matter. Ex. P. 16-a certificate issued by Nimhans which shows that the appellant was not in a position to testify before the Court and sign any document. 9. Appellant was working as' a security guard. There is no credible evidence regarding his income. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly considered his income to be Rs. Ex. P. 16-a certificate issued by Nimhans which shows that the appellant was not in a position to testify before the Court and sign any document. 9. Appellant was working as' a security guard. There is no credible evidence regarding his income. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly considered his income to be Rs. 3,500/- p.m. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained, the amount spent towards obtaining of treatment and the partial permanent disability suffered, which have led to the loss of future income, the just compensation to which the appellant is entitled to is as follows.- (a) Towards pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/ (b) Medical expenses in terms of bills Rs. 66,000/ (c) Incidental charges, such as conveyance, nourished Rs. 20,000/ diet and attendant charges (d) Future medical expenses Rs. 10,000/ (e) Loss of income during laid up period: Rs. 17,500/ (Rs. 3,500 x 5) (f) Loss of future income Rs. 1,84,800/ (Rs. 3500 x 12 x 40/100 x 11) (g) Loss of amenities Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs. 3,68,300/- In the result, appeal stands allowed in part. In modification of the impugned award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, it is held that appellant is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,68,300/- as against Rs. 3,26,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The enhanced part of compensation inclusive of interest, be released to the appellant, without provision for deposit.