Judgment :- M.F.A. No.2730 of 2008 is filed by the Insurance Company for reduction of compensation. M.F.A. No.4178 of 2008 is filed by claimant for enhancement of compensation. 2. I have heard Sri. O. Mahesh, learned Counsel for Insurance Company and Sri Puttasiddappa, learned Counsel for claimant. 3. It is established from medical records and evidence of P.W. 4-Dr. Rizwan Ali Khan, claimant had suffered following injuries.- I. Lacerated wound over left parietal region. II. Minor abrasions over left forearm and fingers. III. Minor abrasion over right great toe. IV. Left fronto parieto occipital depressed fracture. The claimant was treated in D.G. Hospital from 11-8-2005 to 29-8-2005 and 25-9-2005 to 5-10-2005. The claimant had undergone operation for wound debridement, elevation of depressed fragment and duroplasty. The C.T. scan report confirms fracture of left fronto parietal with acute subdural haematoma and haemorrhagig condition did not improve. The claimant suffers from speech disturbances, right hemiperisis and weak memory power. At the time of accident, claimant was aged about 19 years. He was working as a Trainee-cum-Operator in M/s. A.R. Enterprises and earning a salary of Rs. 2,400/- per month, besides he was doing part time job in a provision stores on daily wage of Rs.50/-per day. P.W. 4 on subsequent examination of clamant, having regard to his condition has assessed permanent physical disability of whole body at 40%. 4. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 7,97,400/- under following heads: I. Pain and suffering Rs. 70,000/- II. Medical expenses (including conveyance, attendant charges and extra nourishment) Rs. 1,25,000/- III. Loss of income during treatment period Rs. 31,200/- IV. Loss of future earnings (Rs. 3,900/- x 12 x 18 x 0.5) Rs. 4,21,200/- V. Future medical expenses Rs. 50,000/- VI. Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life Rs. 1,00,000/- Total compensation Rs. 7,97,400/- 5. Sri O. Mahesh, learned Counsel for Insurance Company would submit that Tribunal did not have sufficient material to determine income of claimant at Rs. 3,900/- per month. P.W. 4-Dr. Rizwan Ali Khan, who has assessed permanent physical disability is not a neuro surgeon. The assessment of disability is on the higher side. Compensation awarded by Tribunal under the head “lose of earnings during laid up period” cannot be sustained since “loss of earning capacity and future earnings” is determined, taking into consideration the age of claimant as on the date of accident. 6. The assessment of disability is on the higher side. Compensation awarded by Tribunal under the head “lose of earnings during laid up period” cannot be sustained since “loss of earning capacity and future earnings” is determined, taking into consideration the age of claimant as on the date of accident. 6. The learned Counsel for claimant would submit that claimant has become invalid, in fact, claim petition was filed through the father of claimant. The claimant suffers from 100% permanent physical disability. The claimant needs a constant attendant. The claimant cannot do any work on his own; he cannot attend to his basic needs. The marital prospects of claimant is completely bleakened. Therefore, compensation awarded by Tribunal is inadequate. 7. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the medical expenses to awarded compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- under the head “medical expenses” (including conveyance, attendant charges and extra-nourishment). The Tribunal having regard to nature of injuries, consequent pain and suffering, has awarded compensation of Rs. 70,000/- under the head “pain and suffering”. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- under the head “future medical expenses”. The Tribunal having determined loss of earning capacity and loss of future earnings, taking into consideration age of claimant at the time of accident, should not have awarded compensation of Rs. 31,200/- under the heard “loss of earnings during laid up period”. Therefore, compensation of Rs. 31,200/- awarded by Tribunal under the head “loss of earnings during laid up period” cannot be sustained. 8. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head “loss of amenities and enjoyment of life”. This cannot be termed as excessive, having regard to the fact that claimant has to depend on others during his normal activities of life and even to attend to his basic needs during the rest of his life, which is likely to spread over for several decades. The Tribunal having noticed that claimant’s physical and mental faculty has been impaired and his marital prospects is completely bleakened, has not awarded compensation under the head “loss of marital prospects”. Therefore, I award compensation of Rs. 50,000/- under the head “loss of marital prospects”. In view of the above, claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 8,16,200/- 9. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER M.F.A. No. 2730 of 2008 filed by Insurance Company is dismissed. Therefore, I award compensation of Rs. 50,000/- under the head “loss of marital prospects”. In view of the above, claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 8,16,200/- 9. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER M.F.A. No. 2730 of 2008 filed by Insurance Company is dismissed. M.F.A. No. 4178 of 2008 filed by the claimant is accepted in part. The impugned award is modified. Compensation of Rs. 7,97,400/- awarded by Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 8,16,200/-. The said amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The payment and investment shall be in the ratio evolved in the impugned award. The amount deposited by the Insurance Company shall be transferred to the Tribunal. Parties are directed to bear their costs.